ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Business Rate Revaluation

Chloe Smith: Which types of business he expects to experience the highest increase in rateable values as a result of the April 2010 business rate revaluation.

John Denham: Business rates revaluation is carried out by the Valuation Office Agency, which is independent of Ministers. It will not raise a single extra penny for Government. Oil and gas producing properties, power generators and major sports clubs that have improved their trading position or invested significantly in their grounds are expected to see the largest increases in average rateable values. When the occupier of a property is a charity-for example, in the case of lifeboat stations-and might also see large increases, that occupier is protected by a mandatory 80 per cent. relief from business rates on any property that is occupied for charitable purposes. Local authorities may increase that relief to 100 per cent.

Chloe Smith: Local business know best how to create local growth, yet pubs and independent petrol stations in my constituency feel that RV rules are rigid, out of date and wrong. Does the Secretary of State not agree with the Labour Local Government Association group that business rates should be localised?

John Denham: The hon. Lady raises questions about how valuations are carried out. I would be very interested to learn from her or from the Opposition whether they agree with me that having a valuation office that takes decisions on rateable values independent of Ministers or local councillors is the better way to do it. I would certainly resist any proposals that the rateable values of businesses in her constituency or mine were be set at the whim of local councillors.

Eric Illsley: Independent petrol station retailers in my constituency are also facing huge increases in their business rates from 1 April. Although I agree with the need for an independent valuer, there appears to be no right of appeal against these revaluations until they are put in place from 1 April. Will my right hon. Friend look at that again and provide some form of redress for these retailers?

John Denham: There is a right of appeal. What is more, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the £2 billion transitional scheme that has been put in place. It is always the case, every five years, that the independent revaluation of business rates produces winners and losers. That is why we have a transitional relief scheme that means that the impact on rates bills can be no more than 11 per cent. next year and just 3.5 per cent. for small businesses. There is protection alongside the ability to appeal that my hon. Friend seeks.

Justine Greening: The Secretary of State faces a very clear choice over the 2010 revaluation: he can either ditch it and allow all business properties to enjoy a small inflation-based decrease in property rates or push ahead with it, which will mean that four out of 10 business properties will see a rates rise. Many of those properties will belong to companies that struggled to survive the recession. What is more important and what is fairer-sticking with the revaluation or supporting these companies?

John Denham: I am surprised if that is the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench-the hon. Lady is proposing to impose a rates increase on the 60 per cent. of businesses in this country that are set to have a rates reduction. I think that that policy should be much more widely known. Those businesses that expect to see their rates bills fall and to be helped in a recession will be amazed to find that the Opposition are proposing a rates increase.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State consider the position of the composting industry? Higher environmental standards have meant more indoor composting and therefore more buildings. Is there not a case for switching the valuation to one that is similar to the system for landfill sites, whereby valuation is based on tonnage rather than property?

John Denham: I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but I repeat to the House the point that I made earlier. There is a real choice for the House as a whole: either the Valuation Office Agency acts independently of Ministers-there is considerable case law over 100 years for how rateable values are to be established-or we move to a system whereby, with respect, the relatively micro-level choices that my hon. Friend sets out become decisions for Ministers. I think we would be worse off if the system of determining rateable values were handed to political ministerial control. With all the ups and downs of it and all the problems that arise with every revaluation, we are better off with an independent system than we would be if we brought the system under ministerial control.

Mr. Speaker: I call Michael Fabricant.

Michael Fabricant: I am here today, Mr. Speaker.

Garden Development

Michael Fabricant: What representations he has received from local authorities on the outcome of his Department's review of garden and infill development; and if he will make a statement.

David Borrow: What recent discussions he has had with local authority representatives on steps to reduce the level of infill development of gardens.

John Healey: The Government have received no representations to date from local authorities on the outcomes of the review that I announced on 19 January.

Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that many local councils feel that planning policy statement 3 is just not working when it comes to garden grabbing? Is he aware that councils such as Lichfield find that the city is changing shape simply by virtue of the fact that lovely open areas and big gardens are being redeveloped? What changes can he make to PPS3 to stop this unhelpful practice?

John Healey: I do not accept that and, more importantly, the independent research from Kingston university that I published on Tuesday last week did not accept it. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report, because it confirms that the problem is not widespread or national, and that local authorities already have the power to take steps to prevent development on garden land, if they choose. They are also able to reinforce their position if the matter goes to appeal.

David Borrow: For some months now, I have been working with Susan Fox from Longton in my constituency who has been campaigning against inappropriate developments in gardens and infill plots in her village. I have always told her that it is up to the Tory council in South Ribble to determine what happens, and she was planning to ask me to present a petition to Parliament. May I ask my right hon. Friend to restate the fact that the Tories on South Ribble council could, if they got their act together, put in place a planning policy to deal with the issue? There is no reason to blame the Government.

John Healey: Indeed, and my hon. Friend may want to send the council copies of my statement to the House last Tuesday and of the Kingston university report. He may also want to draw attention to the fact that I have made it clearer in PPS3 that there is no presumption that previously developed land such as garden land will be appropriate for development. It therefore rests with local authorities to put in place a proper local plan that can cover concerns about garden land. It is for them to make the decisions, and to protect people against unwelcome development.

Sandra Gidley: Infill is a problem, but so too is the situation in which a builder buys three or four houses with large gardens and replaces them with 30 to 40 flats, as has happened in Bassett in the Southampton part of my constituency. Local development plans have no influence, especially when it comes to appeals, so what can the Government do to protect areas against having their character ruined?

John Healey: The hon. Lady is wrong on two counts. The independent research by the university confirms that, in four out of five cases, the planning inspectorate backs the local authority on appeal. It also says that local authorities are in a stronger position if they have in place their own local plan covering garden land. If the developer has gone ahead in the way that she describes, that is because the council has not put in place what it could and should have put in place.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a degree of bullying going on in areas such as the Bradford district? A person buys a detached house with a very large and sometimes beautiful garden but the neighbours object at the planning stage and so permission is refused. The owner of the house then allows it to go to wrack and ruin-I know two houses that are in a deplorable state-in the hope that the neighbours will then beg the local authority to give planning permission for the development to get rid of the eyesore that they have had wished on them.

John Healey: The problem that my hon. Friend describes is slightly different from the one we studied in the research report. Local authorities have some fall-back powers to deal with extreme cases of the sort that she has described. If she would like me to, I shall write to her with details of those powers.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister is simply in denial about how his policies give a green light for garden grabbing. Does he agree with the assertion that
	"national planning policy guidance has made it difficult to resist development proposals on garden land, even where there is a detrimental impact on local character, and that this imbalance needs to be rectified"?
	They are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State's own council.

John Healey: I know that the hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends have pressed this case very hard over the past couple of years, but the research and the facts do not bear out her assertion or her concerns. This is a problem in some areas, but they are clearly in the minority. It is also clear, as the report confirms, that councils have the powers to deal with such matters where they present a problem for neighbours and are unwelcome in the local area.

Caroline Spelman: Why cannot Ministers just admit that the blight of garden grabbing is the fault of this Labour Government? The Government, not councils, made gardens count as brown field for planning purposes. Is it not time for change-time councils had proper powers to protect neighbourhoods from inappropriate developments?

John Healey: The hon. Lady is wrong again. The definition she takes issue with was set in 1985 and has not been changed since. It was reconfirmed in one of the Conservative Government's Green Papers and in planning guidance in 1988, and again in 1992. That is not the problem.
	The problem, I am afraid to say, is councils that have the powers but will not accept the responsibility of taking the decisions to protect local people and defending those decisions on appeal. If they had proper local plans in place, their hand would be strengthened in doing so. The hon. Lady would do better to address her concerns to her own councils, which are falling far short of what local residents expect of them.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are a lot of crocodile tears from the Opposition about garden grabbing. May I give my right hon. Friend the facts on Chorley? In Lancaster lane, Whittle and Shaw Hill, garden grabbing has taken place. The first thing the Conservative council did when it was elected was lift the moratorium that gave protection in relation to all house building in the Chorley area. Does he not agree that it was duplicitous and wrong of the council to blame the Government, for it was the council itself that lifted the moratorium on house building?

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that illustrates precisely the general point that I am making: it is in the hands of local councils to decide local priorities, make local decisions and, in his case, demonstrate the difference in approach between a Labour and a Conservative local council in Chorley.

New Build (Migrants)

Peter Bone: If he will estimate the proportion of houses to be built in the next five years which will be occupied by migrants.

Shahid Malik: We have no policy on the allocation of market housing, nor would that be appropriate. Foreign nationals who are eligible to apply for an allocation of social housing will have their housing needs considered against those of all other eligible applicants in accordance with the local housing authority's allocation scheme.

Peter Bone: I am not sure whether the Minister answered the question I asked, but may I push it further? The House of Commons Library tells me that 30 per cent. of new houses will be occupied by migrants coming into this country. Does he agree that if the next Conservative Government limited immigration to this country each year, there would be less need for houses and less need for overdevelopment?

Shahid Malik: It is important that I make it clear, as it would be unfortunate to introduce race to the debate, which perhaps ought not to be introduced, that the overwhelming majority of household growth in this country over the next five years will be indigenously fuelled by increased fertility, increased life expectancy and more people than ever living alone.

Hugh Bayley: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing for coming to York at the weekend, and also the Government for providing funding for new council housing in York. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that their money for housing projects-whether for private developers or for housing associations or councils-provides apprenticeships in the local area in the building trades?

Shahid Malik: It is crucial that every development has some apprenticeships attached to it. As Thames Gateway Minister, that is something I have encouraged. I am incredibly proud of the fact that we have invested £2 billion in housing growth, which will lead to many apprenticeships. There is £1.5 billion extra funding to councils and housing associations, which will build some 15,500 new affordable homes, with all the apprenticeships that will go alongside them.

Interfaith Projects

Parmjit Dhanda: What funds his Department has allocated to interfaith projects in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Shahid Malik: Between 2004-05 and 2007-08, my Department granted more than £5 million to interfaith projects through the faith communities capacity building fund. In 2008, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend when he was Under-Secretary of State, we published "Face to Face and Side by Side". Developed with faith communities, the document set out for the first time a national strategic framework for promoting interfaith activity, supported by some £7.5 million.

Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that although the fund for preventing violent extremism has over three years been about £70 million, the overall faith pot has been about £15 million? Some of the best anti-radicalisation projects are also interfaith projects. Does he agree that this might be a good time to move some of that PVE funding and use it for more interfaith projects, which does not stigmatise any community?

Shahid Malik: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. A few months ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that another £7.5 million would be put out there to ensure a multi-faith approach to implementing the Prevent strategy. Projects that are PVE-focused do not have to go down the community cohesion route. It is pretty obvious that they ought to go down the Prevent route.

Mark Pritchard: Freedom of religion is one of the pillars of our liberal democracy and society. Does the Minister share my concern about those people-a small minority in the Islamic faith-who condemn as apostates those who leave the Islamic faith, and threaten violence and physical retribution for their doing so?

Shahid Malik: That is the kind of question that does not require a response. Everybody in the House would agree with that 100 per cent. Hatred of any sort ought not to be tolerated, and anything that moves to the physical would be illegal as well.

Affordable Housing (London)

Karen Buck: What recent estimate he has made of the level of demand for affordable housing in London.

John Healey: The Mayor of London and the London boroughs are required to assess demand for affordable housing in London. The Mayor's own figures show that about 18,200 new affordable homes are needed each year. I regret to say that his current plan proposes to build 5,000 fewer than that each year.

Karen Buck: As my right hon. Friend implies, demand for affordable homes to rent and buy hugely outstrips the level of provision in the Mayor's housing plan. Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that Boris Johnson has lifted the salary below which priority is given to people pitching for shared ownership schemes to roughly the equivalent of that of a Member of Parliament?

John Healey: I do. When almost two thirds of London households have a total income of less than £30,000 a year, and when we are ready, as we are, to help those people who otherwise could not get into the housing market for themselves, it seems strange to want to lift to that limit and spread the Government help more thinly. I see that as clearly the wrong priority for London and the wrong priority for Londoners.

Nicholas Soames: Has the Minister had time to see the powerful report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which calls for an assessment to be made by the Government of the impact of immigration on affordable housing and other housing, given the great pressure on demand? Has the right hon. Gentleman made such an assessment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to London.

Nicholas Soames: Yes.

John Healey: I recognise and pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman does on these issues, which I know he follows closely. The short answer to his question is no, I have not studied that report. I would be interested to know whether the Lords Committee studied the changes that I made recently to the policy under which councils allocate council and housing association homes, because that makes it clear that migrants are not entitled to be on waiting lists in general, and it has given local authorities more leeway to allocate homes according to local pressures.

Clive Efford: Can my right hon. Friend explain to me why, when the wealthy and powerful suggest things like raising rents to market levels for council and housing association tenants, or taking away their secure tenancies, it is not seen as class war? Does it not amount to a loathing of council and housing association tenants on the part of the Tory party?

John Healey: Such discussions and plans demonstrate a lack of commitment to affordable housing to meet the needs of people who, in many cases, otherwise would not be able to afford to bring up their family and live in the private rented sector and never would be able to afford or maybe do not aspire to move into the housing market for themselves. The truth is that public housing in this country plays a critical role in the lives of many millions of people, including 8 million current tenants, and any plans to raise rents or reduce the security that they have in their own home will be met with justified alarm.

Housing Stock

Simon Hughes: What his estimate is of the number of (a) new homes which will be built and (b) empty homes which will be brought into use in 2010.

Ian Austin: The Department does not publish forecasts for house building. We are committed to reducing the number of long-term empty homes. We have strengthened the powers of local authorities to deal with empty homes when owners have failed to act.

Simon Hughes: Would Ministers be sympathetic to the request from local councils-such as mine in Southwark, where 43 per cent. of homes are social housing and one third are council properties-to be able to restructure their debts, often on properties that no longer exist? In Southwark's case, the repayment figure comes to £43 million. If we are going to build more homes and refurbish homes, we need help so that we do not spend all our money paying off debts on homes that no longer exist.

Ian Austin: That is exactly why we have published proposals to restructure council house finance debt, and I look forward to the Liberal Democrats' support for those proposals.

Nick Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend recognise that if we are to see housing numbers increase significantly, as we all wish, from the current difficult position, what is required above all is certainty and confidence in the future? That could be very seriously damaged by the ill thought out, uncosted and dangerous Opposition proposals for changes to the housing planning scheme.

Ian Austin: My right hon. Friend, who is an expert on these issues and probably knows more about them-[Hon. Members: "Than you do."] He certainly knows more about them than I do, and I am not at all- [ Interruption. ] He knows a damn sight more than Opposition Members, who want to drag race and immigration into discussions about housing. Opposition Front Benchers would gain some credit if they were prepared to distance themselves from the attempts by their Back Benchers to drag immigration into discussions about housing numbers.
	I can tell my right hon. Friend that we are building many more homes now than we would have been if we had taken the Opposition's advice and slashed spending this year and last, in the midst of a recession, because that would have strangled this recovery at birth.

Grant Shapps: Does the Minister for Housing stand by his comments to the Fabian Society, when he said that it was time to give up on the dream of home ownership? Does that have anything to do with the fact that home ownership is falling under Labour, and that house building is at its lowest level since the second world war-with, incidentally, social affordable homes now being built in smaller numbers than under any previous Government? Does not this Government's appalling house building record mean that they have no choice but to abandon any lingering claim to be the party of aspiration?

Ian Austin: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my right hon. Friend's speech, because the hon. Gentleman has obviously not bothered to read it. In actual fact, there are almost 2 million more home owners now than there were in 1997, when the Government came to office. The Government have also overseen an increase in the supply of housing to almost 207,500 in 2007-08, which was the highest annual level of net housing supply in the past 30 years. As I said earlier, we are building many more homes now than we would have been if we had cut spending last year and this, in the midst of a recession, because that would have strangled the recovery at birth.

Sustainable Communities

Phyllis Starkey: What assessment his Department has made of the 199 proposals shortlisted and sent to it by the Local Government Association under the provisions of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007.

John Denham: The Government are currently assessing the 199 proposals shortlisted by the Local Government Association in its role as selector under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. Many of the proposals are complex and raise significant practical issues, but I am anxious to make progress on those proposals that offer practical benefits and new ways of meeting local needs.

Phyllis Starkey: Given that the latest statistics show that the recession is lifting, may I urge my right hon. Friend to prioritise those projects that propose local solutions to address the skills shortages in their locality? Local authorities know their own community best, and they are best able to deliver the solutions that are tailored to local need. That will help people to find jobs as the recession lifts.

John Denham: That is a very practical suggestion from my hon. Friend, who, as Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, has taken a close interest in this Act. She is right; 199 proposals, each of which deserves proper consideration, represents a considerable work load for my Department. Her suggestion that we might look at the areas where we could move more quickly on issues of obvious priority and ability to deliver would be a sensible way for us to approach this big task.

Julia Goldsworthy: Having listened to what the Secretary of State said, may I ask him to commit to a deadline for setting out his initial response to those proposals before the Easter recess, commit to a date for the next round of submissions, and support the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill?

John Denham: The hon. Lady listened to what I said but failed to comprehend it. Let me be perfectly clear. The process involved asking the LGA to shortlist proposals, and in the end it shortlisted two thirds of all those put forward. Under the Act, each of those proposals deserves proper consideration by my Department. The hon. Lady needs to understand that the proper consideration of 199 separate policy proposals, many of which would require changes to primary legislation, is not the sort of thing that can be done by a Minister just running down a list and saying, "I fancy that one", or "I don't fancy that one." I suggest to the hon. Lady that rather than having an artificial deadline, we need, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), to look at the proposals on which we can make progress and practical advances as quickly as possible. However, we will of course assess all the proposals that have been put forward, because that is what we are bound to do under the Act.

Julia Goldsworthy: It sounds suspiciously as though the Secretary of State is trying to kick this issue into the long grass beyond the general election. What is so disappointing about this is that this legislation is a real opportunity to engage people on how public money is spent and public services are delivered in their area. If he misses this opportunity, he will be wasting a lot of public good will. Ultimately, the Total Place pilot shows that only 5 per cent. of total public spending at a local level is discretionary to local authorities. If the Secretary of State believes in the localist agenda, will he put our money where his mouth is?

John Denham: I recognise the opportunities provided by the Act and the proposals that have been submitted, and that is why I want to make progress on those that we have prioritised. The hon. Lady has to be realistic. Policy is not made on a whim, or in five minutes by saying, "I fancy that proposal." The LGA shortlisted far more proposals than anybody could reasonably have expected, and we now need to do the work that is required to assess them properly. Nobody would be more disappointed than those who put these proposals forward if they felt that they had been rejected simply in order to get a list out by the end of March. I think that we owe those people the respect of treating their proposals seriously and discussing them with the LGA, as we are required to do by law, but that may mean that it is not possible to do it by the end of March.

Alan Simpson: One of the specific groups of amendments that has been tabled has come from areas most adversely affected by a prodigious growth in student houses in multiple occupation. In my own city of Nottingham, only 2,000 of a total of 7,000 houses in multiple occupation are covered by the current licensing regime, and many of those seeking to avoid it are in the process of converting sheds and garages into living accommodation, with or without removing the up-and-over garage door. Will the Secretary of State give specific consideration to extending the current licensing regime to cover all HMOs and require planning permission for new ones?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a developing tendency for the narrative to be longer than the question.

John Denham: The short answer is that a number of the proposals received under the Sustainable Communities Act relate to policy discussions that the Government already have under way. On the particular issues to which my hon. Friend refers, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing will want to make a statement in the near future.

Bob Neill: I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that the large number of schemes submitted under the Act demonstrates the degree of public appetite that there is for this. However, does he also accept that there remains disappointment that the original provision in the Act was watered down by the reduction in scope in relation to the spending reports? Will he therefore do what 116 of his own Back Benchers have already signalled in an early-day motion and support the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) when it comes up for debate on 26 February?

John Denham: We are looking at the issues raised by that Bill, and I believe that the Sustainable Communities Act is now part of the architecture of local government. Aside from party politics, I hope that the House will take me seriously when I say that some issues to do with the process have been brought to light by where we are at the moment, and we need to get them right in future to ensure that we have a cost-effective and efficient way of assessing realistic proposals. If we can do that, I see no reason why the Act will not form a permanent part of the local-national relationship in this country.

Home Information Packs

David Amess: What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew MacKay: What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement.

David Jones: What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement.

Ian Austin: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing said in response to a written question from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), we intend to evaluate the effectiveness of HIPs by updating the HIP baseline research report, which was published in January 2007. A copy of that report is available on the DCLG website.

David Amess: Whatever methodology the Department intends to use, is the Minister aware that Southend estate agents, without exception, believe that although HIPs may have been introduced with the best of intentions, in practice they have not worked out at all well and have damaged the housing market?

Ian Austin: I do not accept that at all. Despite a difficult housing market, evidence shows that HIPs actually speed up sales. I am not sure whether there is a branch of Connells estate agency in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but its survey of more than 37,000 transactions showed that sales with HIPs go through an average of seven days quicker.

Andrew MacKay: Why is the Minister in total denial? Nobody whatever thinks that HIPs work, and it would be sensible for the Government to knock them on the head before the election rather than have that albatross around their neck. For our part we are delighted that they are not doing so, but it is in his interests that he should.

Ian Austin: As always, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but I can tell him that thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process and 13,000 people have invested thousands of pounds in training as energy assessors. The Opposition need to explain why they want to put all those jobs and businesses at risk. He needs to tell all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on the process why the Opposition want to put them out of work.

David Jones: The interim results of the updated baseline research report are not due to be published until this summer at the earliest. Given that no empirical evidence is therefore available to the Government about the impact of HIPs on the current housing market, why do they not listen to bodies such as the Law Society, which has said clearly that HIPs
	"add a significant layer of costs for consumers but produce no discernable benefit"?

Ian Austin: As a result of HIPs, more than 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and recommendations in their energy performance certificate that can help them cut their fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions. That is just one of the many benefits of the HIP process that we have introduced. I thought that tackling climate change was one of the big priorities for the new, modern Conservative party. So much, I suppose, for voting blue to go green.

Rob Marris: I have to tell my hon. Friend that as a member of the Law Society of England and Wales, I tend to agree with it. We have to have energy performance certificates under European Union law anyway, and we would have the jobs because of that. Does he really think that for most people, a cost of more than £500 to save an average of seven days, according to the Connells survey, is money well spent? A lot of my constituents do not.

Ian Austin: Obviously, I am very grateful to my constituency neighbour for his intervention on this issue. He is a great man, he really is.
	The recent Office of Fair Trading consumer research on the HIP process showed that a third of buyers were influenced by the HIP and that they had found the new property information questionnaire the most useful component of it. As I said earlier, Connells estate agents surveyed 37,000 transactions and showed that HIPs sped up the process, which is good news.

Stewart Jackson: Parliamentary questions have compelled Ministers to publish opinion research on HIPs done at a cost of £60,000. The survey of 4,000 buyers, sellers and estate agents showed, among other things, that there was minimal public knowledge of and interest in HIPs, that people considered them a waste of time, that buyers were not consulting them and that costs were being duplicated. When will the Government admit that their £500 million experiment has been a disaster, listen to consumers and scrap this discredited scheme?

Ian Austin: As I said a short while ago, what the research actually shows is that in a short period, nine out of 10 buyers used the HIP. One in three said that it helped them decide which home to buy, which is a big improvement on the figures shortly after the introduction of HIPs, and shows that the system is becoming more helpful and useful all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Front Benchers must answer is why they want to sling out of work the thousands of people who have invested time and money in training to implement the process, and to cut the jobs of their constituents who depend on it.

Social Housing (Security of Tenure)

Clive Betts: What recent assessment he has made of security of tenure for social housing tenants; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: Low-cost, long-term tenancies are the foundation for the lives of millions of social tenants, and we are committed to safeguarding that security.

Clive Betts: Would my right hon. Friend like to offer reassurance to members of the Westfield tenants and residents association, who are somewhat alarmed to see comments made by the chief executive of the Tenants Services Authority, who said that in future, tenants in areas of high demand might lose that security? If so, will my right hon. Friend completely dissociate himself from the comments of the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, who said that one problem with social housing was that it was hard to get rid of these people?

John Healey: The comments that my hon. Friend attributes to the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council are very revealing-they reveal a deeply held prejudice against people in public housing. As for the comments of the chief executive of the Tenants Services Authority, it would be worth while for my hon. Friend to reassure residents in his constituency that matters of policy concerning the security of people's tenure are for the Government, not the TSA chief executive.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister be supporting the excellent Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.) Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), on Second Reading?

John Healey: Yes, it is an excellent Bill and I will give it every support I can.

Waste Treatment Plants

Natascha Engel: What guidance his Department provides to planning authorities on dealing with contested applications for development of waste treatment plants.

Ian Austin: General guidance on handling all planning applications is set out in our 2004 statement on general principles for the planning system. This reminds local planning authorities that they should determine each application in line with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Natascha Engel: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but can his Department do anything further to ensure that planning authorities such as Derbyshire county council, which is now Tory-run, do not drag their feet when faced with difficult planning decisions, because that results in hundreds of people putting their lives on hold to campaign against, for example, an incinerator application?

Ian Austin: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency and I know what a fantastic local MP she is in representing her constituents. She will understand, I hope, that I cannot comment on the specific proposal that her constituents are concerned about, but I can tell her that we wrote to Derbyshire county council last October to ask it to get a move on with delivering its waste plan.

Gary Streeter: Does the Department's guidance suggest that it is sensible to place a large energy-for-waste plant in an attractive rural area, clogging up local roads and causing all kinds of highway issues? If not, will the Minister encourage Devon county council to throw out the Viridor scheme for Lee Mill in my constituency?

Ian Austin: The guidance shows that waste planning authorities should identify suitable locations for waste facilities in their local plans, and in doing so take into account our planning policies for waste.

Green Belt

Anne Milton: Which regional spatial strategies contain proposals for review of green belt designations.

Shahid Malik: All regional strategies, except that for the north-east, contain some targeted proposals for review of green belt boundaries in their respective regions. The purpose of the regional strategy is to consider where development should take place in the most sustainable way possible. Reviews of green belt are undertaken by local authorities, and the decision on whether to make changes is theirs. We remain absolutely committed to maintaining the area of green belt to its 2007 level, and to saying that changes to parts of the green belt should take place only in exceptional circumstances.

Anne Milton: Following Guildford borough council's judicial review of the south-east plan, what plans does the Minister have to remove the designation in that plan to build on the green belt in Guildford, in the light of the Prime Minister's promise to protect the green belt? He has let the country down and he has let Guildford down.

Shahid Malik: I reject the latter point completely. The fact is that there are an extra 34,000 hectares of green belt land in this country because of this Government. I accept that the application of the sustainability appraisal process in relation to Guildford was flawed, and negotiations are going on between the Government and the litigants, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matter any further.

Local Government Decision Making

Angela Smith: What his policy is on the devolution of responsibility for decision making from central to local government.

Rosie Winterton: Over the past decade, local authorities have gained significant powers, responsibilities and financial freedoms from central Government to enable devolution of decision making to local communities.

Angela Smith: On 11 January the Government formalised and made available to local government new powers in relation to bus services which complement the concessionary bus pass scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perverse for a future Government who profess to believe in devolution to repeal those powers, which have been warmly welcomed by local government?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As the Minister who took the relevant Bill through the House, I know that Conservative Front Benchers opposed it-it is an important Bill that gives powers to local authorities to gain greater control over bus services-despite the fact that Conservative councillors wrote to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and said that it was about time that she and her colleagues listened to what councillors were saying about the importance of bus services to local communities. The Opposition have also said that they would abolish quality contracts, which would be a kick in the teeth to councillors who want to ensure that they have good bus services for local people.

John Redwood: Is the Minister aware that her top-down planning policies mean that places such as Wokingham have to build on flood plain, leading to flooding of adjacent dwellings, because they are instructed to do so when they would not otherwise dream of it?

Rosie Winterton: Considerable guidance is in place on building and flood plains. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that guidance applies at various levels. It is important that councils are able to take decisions according to the situation that they face locally.

Topical Questions

David Heathcoat-Amory: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: My Department continues to work to create prosperous, resilient and cohesive communities. Today's growth estimate demonstrates that we have been right to support families in the economy through the downturn. We had a plan for the recession and we have a plan for the recovery. Stepping up help for people to stay in their homes, the transformation of front-line services through initiatives such as Total Place, the opening up of local services and public data, extending scrutiny powers and the slashing of red tape all play a vital role in driving growth.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What about light pollution? Does the Department realise that excessive lighting not only blocks out the night sky, but is fantastically wasteful of energy? Will the Minister review the planning policy statements with a view to cutting out excessive lighting pollution and nuisance?

John Denham: I looked along the Front Bench hoping to see one of the ministerial team thrusting themselves forward, but in the absence of that I acknowledge the importance of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I welcome the recent announcement of the light pollution-free park in Scotland, and I will write to him with an update on the current planning powers on this issue.

Phyllis Starkey: The Government have introduced a helpful package of measures to protect homeowners against repossession, and the Minister recently announced some additional measures to be rolled out, including in Milton Keynes. Can he give a little more information about the proposals for my constituency, which I think are being undertaken in conjunction with the citizens advice bureau?

John Healey: I can, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend is right. The range of measures that we have put in place essentially to help people to stay where they should be during a recession-in their own homes-has led to 333,000 families getting help or advice from the Government in the past year. The initiative in her area is a combination of extra press and radio advertising, and in some areas, face-to-face advice events to ensure that people know what help is available and are encouraged to take it up. We know that if people bury their heads in the sand, their homes and futures are much more at risk.

Edward Timpson: The Labour charter trustees in Crewe have recently voted to increase their part of the council tax bill by 122 per cent. Will the Government's proposed council tax revaluation make many of my constituents' council tax bills even higher?

Rosie Winterton: The council tax revaluations are obviously required by statute and undertaken by an independent body. In addition, we have made available a £2 billion transitional relief scheme for revaluation to assist where there are higher increases.

Lindsay Hoyle: Hard-working families in Chorley and across the country are struggling to pay their council tax bills, and it would only be right to look for a zero increase in council tax. Can we ensure that no time bombs have been built into authorities by miscalculations and playing around with the budgets wrongly, and does the Secretary of State have a view on this?

John Denham: It has been suggested that there should be a two-year council tax freeze funded by central Government, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the cost of such a policy would be £1,970 million in the first two years. Those who promise it cannot say how they will pay for it or when it would start. Even on their own dodgy, unrealistic and out-of-date figures, there is a £470 million hole in the Opposition plans.

Andrew Pelling: Last night, at a meeting of Croydon council, in response to four questions from independent members of the public and independent councillor, Councillor Cakebread, the council was unable to say how much remuneration councillors received outside their council employment and how many hours they worked. Given that Croydon has the highest basic rate of pay for councillors, will the Government give guidance to councils advising that when there are cuts to services they should make similar cuts to councillors' salaries?

John Denham: The remuneration of councillors is fully devolved to local authorities. Many have independent review mechanisms, rather than allowing the decision to be taken entirely by members. The hon. Gentleman makes the valuable point that, at a time when it is important to use every taxpayer pound as effectively and efficiently as possible, those authorities with particularly high levels of councillor remuneration may need to consider their policies.

Joan Humble: Further to the Secretary of State's visit to Blackpool, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) had an opportunity to show him much of the regeneration taking place in the town, has he had an opportunity to consider what role his Department can play in the exciting plans for Blackpool council to take over the winter gardens and tower as part of that regeneration strategy?

Rosie Winterton: I know of the support that my hon. Friend has given to this project, which I understand is being looked at jointly with the regional development agency and the Department for Transport. It is an exciting project, and such regeneration is important. It is another example of the Government and local councils understanding that, in times of economic difficulties, it is important to intervene in such areas-unlike the approach of the Conservative party.

Andrew Stunell: Can the Secretary of State tell the House when he intends to comply with section 6 of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 and place before the House his statutory report, which is now 13 months overdue?

John Healey: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that, but I will write to him, and then I will tell him.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for visiting my constituency last week and seeing for himself the Ridings school site, which the Tory council plans to demolish, against local wishes. Will he join me in sending a clear message to Calderdale council that such sites should not be demolished or sold off just to make a quick buck, but put to community use?

John Denham: I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency last week. I was particularly interested in the project to transfer control of the former Ridings school to a community trust in some form. She knows from our discussions that I undertook exactly that exercise in my constituency back in the mid-1980s, taking over a former secondary school so that it could be run as a social enterprise by the local community. I am pleased to say that my Department's asset transfer unit stands ready to provide support to local people, with business plans and guidance. I hope that her council is prepared to listen to the exciting ideas that local people have and that it can make them a reality.

Angela Watkinson: Local authorities up and down the country send out Criminal Records Bureau disclosure forms to anyone who wants to work in a school or old people's home. How effective does the Minister think those forms are, given that they contain 66 questions of quite a detailed personal nature, including on personal bank details? No. 66 is "Do you have any unspent criminal convictions?" What confidence can we have that any unsuitable person-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I think that I counted two and a half questions, but we will have a reply now from the Minister.

Rosie Winterton: First, it is extremely important that proper checks are carried out. I know that there is ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the checks that are carried out and the systems that are adopted. I am not completely sure about the hon. Lady's point about unspent criminal convictions, but in general it is vital that proper checks are carried out, and we should all contribute to the debate about how we improve that. If she has any ideas on where specific changes should be made, I suggest that she contact the appropriate Department.

Phil Wilson: In Sedgefield there are many properties let out by private landlords, but a significant number are empty at any one time. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what progress we are making towards a national registration scheme for private landlords, to try to get rid of some of the rogue landlords in our communities?

John Healey: The proposal for a national register of private landlords is only one of those that we are looking at to try to tighten up the activities of the worst landlords, who give the tenants to whom they rent their properties a bad standard of housing and service. The private rented sector is important to many people in this country, but it is our duty as a Government to ensure that the very worst landlords are stamped out.

Paul Burstow: Earlier, the Minister for Housing told the House that when local authorities decide to reject permission for infill and back garden land developments, they win in four out of five cases. However, does he not understand that councils tend to act defensively, granting permission because they feel compelled to do so by Government policy, as a consequence of which cases never get to appeal? Will he therefore give my constituents in Sutton and Cheam, Worcester Park, the assurance that his announcement last week really does afford them the protection that they want from predatory developments?

John Healey: It does, and it is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman's council to provide that protection for itself against appeal and, more importantly, for residents against unwelcome developments. If his council is falling back on Government guidance, it is failing to put in a place a local plan for policies that suit the area of Sutton. That is the council's responsibility. The report that I published last week confirms on the basis of the research that where councils do that, they are in a stronger position to protect local residents and deal with any appeals that might crop up.

Andrew MacKinlay: Can I tell the Secretary of State that one of the hallmarks of this Government, whom I have been proud to support over 11 years, is also a downside: their obsession with reorganising that which they have reorganised? They insist on putting in layers of bureaucracy where they are not necessary. Can I urge him to stop putting the Thames Gateway development corporation under the Homes and Communities Agency? It is unnecessary and will cause bureaucratic inertia.

Shahid Malik: I fully understand and respect my hon. Friend's concerns. The decision was taken after much consultation with all the stakeholders, and we have come to a consensus that we genuinely believe is in the best interests of the Thames Gateway, of the staff involved, and of regeneration in that area.

Mark Pritchard: Violent extremism needs to be tackled in all communities, including those who want to curtail freedom of religion, despite the protestations of the Minister for the West Midlands. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government's current policy on preventing violent extremism is working?

John Denham: Yes. We need to accept that the task of strengthening the ability to resist the ideas of al-Qaeda-type extremists that are targeted at young people is something that we will have to sustain and develop. Looking back over the first two years of the Prevent programme, we are seeing an increasingly rich range of local initiatives up and down the country, all of which have as their outcome the idea that it is less likely that a young person in this country will get drawn into support for that kind of violent extremism. I believe that our programme, which we are developing all the time, is on the right lines. We continue to learn from best practice across the country and to strengthen the programme month by month.

Andy Reed: The Minister will be aware that campaigners in areas of high student occupation, particularly in houses in multiple occupation, are looking forward to the Government's announcement on use classes orders. When can we expect that announcement?

John Healey: Soon.

Oliver Heald: When Ministers set out new requirements for local councils in the field of information technology that involve the roll-out of new software, what account do they take of the effect on small district councils that have to hire consultants and spend hundreds of thousands of pounds as a consequence? Are these wise decisions to make in the middle of a recession, given their effect on hard-pressed taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker: Quite cheekily, the hon. Gentleman got a second question in at the end.

John Denham: The Government's approach to making the vast amount of data currently held by local authorities more freely available on the web in real time is crucial to the efficiency and accountability of local services. I would say to the smaller district councils, which defend their role vigorously, that they need to face the fact that they are going to have to share services and work collaboratively with other small district councils, in order to show that the autonomy that they value does not come at an unacceptably high cost to local taxpayers. They will have to deal with such issues by working with others to achieve the cost-effectiveness that everyone wants.

Robert Flello: Despite the Government's very good track record on supporting rough sleepers, I am alarmed at the number of people in London who are on waiting lists to get into a hostel, and at the number in my own constituency who seem to be in a constant circle of finding supported housing and then going back to rough sleeping. Can the Minister please tell me what further work is being done to alleviate the situation? Perhaps we could have a meeting to discuss the matter.

Ian Austin: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter. I have visited Stoke and met some of the organisations that provide services for homeless people, and I would be happy to go back to meet him and have a look at the problem in depth. I can tell him that, as a result of the record levels of investment that this Government have put in since 1997, however we calculate it, and by whatever measures we use, the numbers of rough sleepers have been cut dramatically-more than has ever been achieved in the past.

James Duddridge: The Secretary of State has put forward an article 14 directive in relation to London Southend airport. It would be helpful to the local community if he could tell us roughly when he will make a decision on that matter, and whether there will be a need for a public inquiry. The sooner the better.

John Denham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, but he will understand why I cannot reply to his question this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will come to points of order in a moment. I am sorry that a tiny number of colleagues missed out. My appetite for hearing colleagues' questions and Ministers' answers is insatiable, but I am afraid that we have to move on.

Points of Order

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 24 November last year, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) used parliamentary privilege to say the following about the noble Lord Lawson of Blaby:
	"I just wondered who is financing this body that Lord Lawson is setting up. We tend to find that such bodies are funded by the oil and coal industry and people like that. So I had a look and found that the Central Europe Trust Ltd is the body that he has set up and his clients are Elf, Total, Shell, BP, Amoco, Texaco-that is a lot of oil companies. From what I can see of it, it is not so much a think-tank as a petrol tank."-[ Official Report, 24 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 426.]
	That statement, while being surprisingly amusing for the right hon. Gentleman, is not correct. Indeed, if delivered outside the House, it would have been actionable. Lord Lawson has written to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to correct the record; he has not done so. If he had said that about any Member of this House, we would have been able to defend ourselves, in this House. That privilege is not available to a Member of the other place. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statement is a reflection on a Member of the other place, which is prohibited, except on a substantive motion, by the rule enunciated in "Erskine May", page 439. I ask you to rule on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he intended to raise a point of order. What I would say to him at this stage is simply this: I am happy to examine the passage in the  Official Report in the light of his reference to the rule about casting reflections on a Member of the other place. That I shall do.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There must be an election on the way, as the courtesies normally applied in the House are not being observed by some hon. Members. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) visited my constituency to try to explain away why the Tory council wants to build hundreds of houses on our green belt and floodplain, but she did not inform me at all. She is the third senior Tory to do that. Do I smell panic?

Mr. Speaker: Something tells me that the hon. Gentleman seeks to entice or inveigle me into a debate. He knows that that is not a proper thing to do. On his point of order- [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for his chuntering from a sedentary position, but if he would allow me to rule on the point of order, I should be pleased to do so. Everybody in the House knows that there is a long-established, important and generally respected convention that one Member visiting the constituency of another Member on public business should do that other Member the courtesy of offering prior notification. That is all that needs to be said. In these competitive times, I hope that those courtesies will be observed, and that it will not be necessary for us continually to return to this point.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I visit many councils each week and, normally, I faithfully inform the Member concerned, as I am sure Members will testify. In this case, I appear to have made a genuine mistake, for which I apologise. I hope that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will accept that apology.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for such a prompt and courteous reply. I have the impression that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has noted and accepted it. A simple nod of the head will suffice.

Bob Spink: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The matter can rest there, and we can all now happily proceed in a constructive spirit.

Ambulance Response Times (Local Reporting)

Motion for leave to  bring in  a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Edward Timpson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require ambulance services to provide more accessible and localised reports of ambulance response times; and for connected purposes.
	I thank all those Members across the House who have sponsored the Bill. I am sure that they would wish to join me in recording our gratitude to all those who work on the front line of our ambulance services for their valiant and valuable work on our behalf.
	My Bill would help to bring greater transparency and proper accountability to bear on the performance of ambulance services across England, in an effort to assist ambulance trusts and primary care trusts in addressing deficiencies and variability in their current service, and to improve outcomes for patients. The seeds of the Bill were metaphorically sown in the town of Nantwich in my constituency, almost two years ago. In the face of what were called "operational decisions" by the North West Ambulance Service to downgrade and deskill the service provided by community first responder volunteers in Nantwich, a local campaign erupted in opposition, not least because to the local community the value of community first responders in helping to reduce response times and save lives by plugging the gaps that mainstream operations were unable to fulfil was all too apparent. Two years on, the campaign continues apace, testament in no small part to the unstinting commitment to his local community demonstrated by Nantwich community first responder Gavin Palin and to the resolve of local councillors in fighting for a better service.
	This drawn-out saga has also raised serious doubts about the current performance standards required of ambulance trusts across England as a proper measure of outcomes for patients. Following the review of ambulance performance standards in July 1996, the categorisation of calls according to clinical urgency was introduced, whereby category A calls-those deemed immediately life-threatening-should receive an emergency response within eight minutes in 75 per cent. of cases. Category B calls-those classed as serious but not immediately life threatening-should receive a 19-minute response in 95 per cent . of cases. Category C calls-those neither immediately life-threatening nor serious-should be met through locally determined standards. Given that the number of ambulance call-outs has risen by over 100 per cent. in the past 10 years to 7.48 million in 2008-09, we should recognise that the national performance targets are robust, but rightly so.
	However, the 1996 review also recommended that those standards should be based on health authority rather than ambulance service areas, as that would mean that standards could be related to smaller areas. That recommendation was not implemented, and so we remain in a regional rather than local response time system of performance accountability, despite the fact that the number of ambulance service areas has been reduced from 37 in 1996 to just 13 today. The report went on to say that there was a risk that the needs of smaller localities within larger geographical areas could be neglected. That is exactly what has happened in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in other parts of the north-west and beyond.
	Regional targets are distorting and disguising enormous local variations within a region, where local performance can be patchy all the way through to grossly substandard. If we take response times for 2008-09, the percentage of category A incidents that resulted in an emergency response arriving at the scene within eight minutes in the north-west region was 74.3 per cent., just below the national standard. Yet when the data are broken down into more localised figures, the picture is very different. For Central and East Cheshire PCT-it serves my constituency-the percentage drops to 65.2 per cent. For the CW5 Nantwich postcode, it falls further to 52.1 per cent. For the CW3 Audlem postcode, which crosses the border into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), the percentage is just 14.3 per cent. or fewer than one in five life-threatening cases.
	Even taking into account the inherent geographical difficulty of reaching more rural areas than urban areas, those are unacceptable responses. Without extracting the information through freedom of information requests, as I have done, the public have no meaningful way of establishing how their local service is performing and, in turn, as set out in the 1996 report, local communities are not provided with the freedom to adapt forms of response to local services and patterns of service such as the community first responders whom we have in Nantwich.
	Such locally focused information should not have to be made public through the costly FOI process. Regional figures are already published and the North West Ambulance Service was able to respond within 24 hours to my FOI request for local response times, based on the fact that it already holds the information on its database. A senior North West Ambulance Service manager has told me that this information is available at the push of a button, so let us see it published online, on a monthly basis, by primary care trust and postcode area, at minimum cost. Where the call targets are missed by a significant margin, let us have an explanation as to why. That is already provided in Wales, so that people can identify the gaps and fill them by improving the local service through partnerships between the public, the voluntary sector and the emergency services.
	The North West Ambulance Service and its chief executive, Darren Hurrell, are starting to understand the benefits of that approach. In the likely event that this Bill does not become law, I therefore hope that these proposals will form part of the common practice across the North West Ambulance Service and the other 12 ambulance trusts in England. I recognise that response-time requirements are not enshrined in primary legislation, and this mechanism of introducing new requirements on ambulance services may not be the most adept way of achieving my aim. Indeed, I am also acutely aware that there is a question as to whether response targets are an effective measure of patient care and outcomes, as what matters for the patient is not just the speed of response, but what level of medical attention is received on arrival, in transit and in hospital, and the quality of after-care service. I accept that fully, but I hope that my Bill will begin to address the absence of proper local accountability across the ambulance service and, in doing so, help to improve the outcomes for patients, wherever they happen to live. I commend this Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Edward Timpson, Mike Penning, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Graham Stringer, Mr. Ben Wallace, Geraldine Smith, Alistair Burt, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Tobias Ellwood, Paul Rowen, James Duddridge and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle present the Bill.
	Mr. Edward Timpson accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March and to be printed (Bill 55).

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the programme motion, and I call Secretary Jack Straw to move it formally.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about the formal moving of the programme motion. Our understanding is that the programme motion appeared until very recently to be debatable, but at the last minute a new Order Paper seems to have appeared to explain that it is not debatable. I wonder whether it could be explained to the House why that is the case, because we would wish to debate it, in view of the fact that the Government have now changed the programming of this Bill on a number of occasions and we appear to be on a magical mystery tour without having any understanding of where we are going.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding is that under the Standing Orders the matter did not fall to be debated. What I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman and, more widely, to the House is that the earlier Order Paper, of which he and others had sight and by which, therefore, inevitably, they were informed, was erroneous and the position was changed subsequently.  [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) can understand the word "erroneous" and the concept embodied in it.  [Interruption.] I need no further interruption from the hon. Gentleman, because I am responding to the point of order.
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and others were guided by the old Order Paper; it was erroneous and was replaced by another. I do not know whether Secretary Straw wishes to respond to the point of order, but I feel sure that I am about to discover whether he does. If he wants to respond, he can. No, he is not going to do so.  [Interruption.] Order. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has raised his point of order. He has put his point very forcefully on the record.

John Gummer: rose-

Mr. Speaker: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman has a different, unrelated point of order.

John Gummer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a wider point of order. The problem is that many Members of the House find the process extremely difficult to accept in any case. It would be helpful if the Government recognised that an explanation is owed to the whole House on matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his further and wider point of order, which is now clearly on the record, and which will have been heard by Members on the Treasury Bench.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the Order of 3 November 2009 in the last Session of Parliament (Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme) (No. 2)), as varied by the Order of 19 January 2010 (Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme) (No. 3)) be further varied as follows:
	(1) in paragraph 2, for 'four days' there shall be substituted 'five days';
	(2) in the Table, for the entry relating to the fourth day of Committee there shall be substituted:
	TABLE
	
		
			  Fourth day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 34, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3 (except any new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the tax status of members of the House of Lords). The moment of interruption on the fourth day. 
			  Fifth day 
			 Remaining new Clauses and remaining new Schedules, Clauses 59 to 62, remaining proceedings on the Bill. The moment of interruption on the fifth day. 
		
	
	 -( Lyn Brown. )
	 The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Constitutional Reform and  Governance Bill

[Relevant documents:  Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, Session 2007-08, HC 551-I and-II, and t he Government response, Cm 7690.  Tenth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2007-08, on Constitutional Renewal: Draft Bill and White Paper, HC 499, and the Government response, Cm 7688 .  Fourth Report from the Joint Committee on H uman Rights, on Legislative Scrutiny:  Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, HC 249. ]

[4th Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 29
	 — 
	Ending of by-elections for hereditary peers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jack Straw: This provision will remove by-elections for hereditary peers from the current arrangements for membership of the House of Lords.
	Before I discuss the clause, it may be helpful, with your indulgence, Sir Alan, if I explain that the programme motion as it appeared on the Order Paper until this morning was deemed to be debateable. I understand that an error was made in the Table Office. The Government had no knowledge of that, but having seen that the motion was debateable, we assumed that it was indeed debateable and were prepared for it to be debated. I think the House knows very well that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), and I are always happy to debate.
	I ought to say that this is the only occasion during a long period as a Member of the House that I have ever known an error to be made by the Table Office. It is just one of those things. Also, if I may say so, the Standing Order was passed in 1998 and confirmed in 2004. There is a separate debate to be had-it is open to the House to have it-about how and whether the system of programming should be changed.

David Heath: rose-

Jack Straw: If I may, I will leave it there because-

David Heath: You said you wanted to debate it!

Jack Straw: If I may-

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I was indulgent to the Secretary of State because I thought the matter had been dealt with previously on a point of order in the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will not press the matter too far.

David Heath: Of course not, Sir Alan. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way, and I accept entirely that this was a very rare error in the printed papers, but I also agree with him entirely that we should consider the matter, because it is anomalous that the House cannot decide its own programmes and order of business. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

The Chairman: I hope that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will take note of this exchange.

Jack Straw: Thank you, Sir Alan. As I have said, the clause will end by-elections for hereditary peers. As existing hereditary peers pass away, they will not be replaced.
	This is the background to the clause. Following the 1997 manifesto commitment, it was the Government's intention to end the hereditary principle altogether. Legislation was brought before Parliament in the 1998-99 Session. In the event, and following great debates in the other place, a deal was struck, and it was originally agreed that 90 hereditaries, who in turn would be elected by their own peers, would continue to be able to sit as Members of the House of Lords. It was also agreed that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain would continue to sit ex officio, and nothing in the provisions-or, I may say, any other provisions-is about changing that. It is not an issue today.
	Subsequently, during the debates, the provisions to continue with 90 hereditary peers were further amended so as to provide for those by-elections-the subject of the clause. It is well known, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will wish to remind us, that Lord Irvine said that this was an agreement and that is was for a transitional period to the next stage of reform. I paraphrase, but I think entirely accurately.
	One issue that may arise is whether we are through that transitional period.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: Allow me to continue before I get on to the main- [Interruption.] No.
	I wish to correct the noble Lord Steel, who was in that House at the time, I think, and who has taken a great interest in the matter. In the debates on his Bill, which contained provisions almost identical to these, he said:
	"It was clearly indicated at that time that this"-
	the by-elections and the position with regard to hereditaries-
	"was a temporary measure to last perhaps a couple of years. We are nearing the 10th anniversary of that temporary measure."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2009; Vol. 708, c. 432.]
	He went on to make a joke about celebrating 100 years of Asquith's commitment to remove the hereditaries.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He may agree with me that whatever Lord Steel may say, the commitment that was given by Lord Irvine in clear and unequivocal terms-I shall quote only a small part of it-was that "the 10 per cent.", namely the remaining elected hereditaries,
	"will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]
	The right hon. Gentleman may agree that that and Lord Steel's comments are on two completely different topics. The temporary arrangement may have lasted a long time, but why should Lord Irvine's guarantee not remain good, seeing that stage 2 has not yet occurred?

Jack Straw: I hope that I can convince the hon. and learned Gentleman why. We are not proposing in the Bill to end the right of the existing, albeit elected, hereditaries to sit in the Chamber. What we are proposing is in respect of by-elections. Some might argue that, after 10 years, we are very close to the second stage. I do not particularly take that point, because I want to come on to whether, 10 years on, it is sensible or acceptable in a modern democracy to continue with an utterly risible arrangement for election of hereditary peers with tiny constituencies.
	I will also deal with the issue of party balance. I want to make it clear that, as those from other parties who have served with me on the cross-party working groups on the House of Lords will confirm, it is no part of the Government's intention to use this provision to worst the Conservative party, which has the largest number of hereditary peers, or to shift the long-standing and explicit agreement that there should be a cross-party balance in the House of Lords.

Andrew Tyrie: A moment ago the Secretary of State described the by-elections arrangement as absurd. Does he not have even a twinge of embarrassment that his Government are responsible for devising it and then ensuring that it secured a majority in the House?

Jack Straw: I do not think that even Lord Irvine would claim authorship of the arrangement, which was part of a deal that was struck. He agreed it-I remember it coming to Cabinet. In the end, we confirmed it in order to get the Bill through, but if the hon. Gentleman's only point is whether that was Government policy, he often enough suggests that it is time to revise Government policy. My suggestion is that, given the practice that has followed with these by-elections, it certainly is. I shall explain that in a moment.

Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State has described the arrangement as utterly risible. Surely the whole point of creating, in his words, "an utterly risible arrangement" was that it would put pressure on future Governments to introduce fundamental reform. Once it is removed, there will be no pressure whatsoever. We will live with an appointed Chamber, perhaps for ever.

Jack Straw: So that we understand what the Conservative party is seeking to defend, it is seeking to defend by-elections. There have been 10 in the past eight years, so we are not undertaking a huge reform. In any event, the other 90 hereditaries will remain until they pass away, and some of them are quite youthful, so it will take quite a long time before the grim reaper reduces the number or eliminates hereditaries altogether. Let us be clear about that.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. What has happened in the intervening 10 years? We set up a royal commission under the noble Lord Wakeham, which did great work but, itself, was relatively divided. My late friend, the former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House, Robin Cook, as Leader of the House in February 2003 organised a debate and a series of votes on the future composition of the House of Lords, and those who were Members at the time will recall that every single proposition was defeated.
	When I went on the customary transition from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House, a well trodden path, I was given by Tony Blair-as the then Prime Minister generously said to me-not one but two hospital passes in addition to the normal responsibilities: one was party funding and the other was House of Lords reform. Anyway, we got the cross-party group going, and one Green Paper was published. That culminated in our debates of March 2007, when for the first time ever the Commons, on free votes, came to some very clear decisions. It rejected an all-appointed second Chamber; it rejected any mixed proportion of appointed and elected peers, up to but excluding 80 per cent.; and it voted in favour, first, of an 80 per cent.-elected Chamber and then, by a bigger majority, in favour of a 100 per cent.-elected Chamber, which has been accepted as the policy of this House.
	I reconvened the working party, and we produced in July 2008 a further White Paper, which drew on a great deal of work, including that of the Wakeham commission, about how Members would be elected, the terms that they would serve and so on. Quite shortly, I intend to publish what will amount to the basic contents of a Bill fully to reform the House of Lords. Those contents are currently being drafted. So, a huge amount of work is being done on the matter.

Lembit �pik: I am very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I understand that he has to tread carefully to preserve a consensus on constitutional reform, but I am surprised that he is willing to wait for the transitional arrangements to continue, effectively, until the last hereditary peer dies. Does that mean that the Government's policy is basically to shift responsibility for the transitional period from the Ministry of Justice to the grim reaper?

Jack Straw: No. I understand why my words may have been interpreted in that way, but for the avoidance of doubt the hereditary peers would go when the new arrangements come in. Meanwhile, there is a glaring anomaly that we need to deal with.

David Winnick: Ending the membership of 90 per cent. of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is a remarkable achievement that no other radical Government have ever succeeded in doing, as we know, and the Government should accept the praise for what has been achieved. Leaving 10 per cent. of hereditary peers-92 in effect-in the House of Lords, sitting there only because they inherited their title, one of which goes back as I reminded the House two years ago, to the 13th century, however, is unfortunate and is clearly an anomaly. Many of us had hoped that the situation would not continue for so long.

Jack Straw: I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments, because he was a Member between 1966 and 1970, when Richard Crossman, the then Leader of the House, attempted a major reform of the House of Lords. That was scuppered by a cross-party alliance between Enoch Powell, who was then a Conservative, and Michael Foot. That proposed reform was not very good; the one before us is much better.

John Gummer: rose-

John Redwood: rose-

Jack Straw: I shall give way to the two right hon. Gentlemen, but I want to make some progress before I do so-if they can hold themselves.
	We suggest that the arrangements for these by-elections, and their results, are even less satisfactory than accepting the continuance of the existing 90 hereditaries. That is because those 90 could claim, and have claimed-I do not necessarily endorse this-some legitimacy because they were sitting there before and they were elected at the time as part of the deal. Ten years on, we have a ridiculous arrangement. It is worth taking the House through the circumstances of the 10 by-elections that have taken place. Of the two that involved the whole House, the first had 423 electors and the other had 348 electors. Since then, in all the rest, the total number of electors has been fewer than 50. The Conservatives usually manage about 50 electors, but they also usually manage between 30 and 45 candidates, which is absurd enough.  [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) recognises how absurd this is given a moment's examination.
	When we come to the position of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party, it is utterly absurd that in the first election of a Labour peer following the death of Lord Milner there were 11 candidates, but-guess what?-only three electors. That makes Old Sarum appear to be a remarkably democratic arrangement. In the case of the Liberal Democrats in 2005, there were three candidates and only four electors. That is slightly better-30 per cent. better-than the Labour party could manage in terms of electors. However, is anyone seriously going to go out and argue on the stand publicly-

Edward Leigh: That was the point of it.

Jack Straw: No, that was not the point of it-the point was that it was necessary to get this through with some degree of consensus, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who has now left his seat, has said; that is why people swallowed hard and accepted it. However, 10 years on, as the laughter from the Opposition Benches, including the Conservative Benches, acknowledges, this situation cannot continue.

John Gummer: Does not this underline the fact that if we are to have reform, we should have wholesale reform, which is what we were presented with? I happen to be opposed to that, but that does not matter two hoots-what matters is that we take this matter seriously. It does not matter what the Justice Secretary says-everybody outside knows that this is a tiny bit of reform that is party politically driven and that he is trying to explain away. Why does he not have the honesty to come forward with a proper reform, so that we can vote on it properly?

Jack Straw: I am sorry, but it is not party politically driven. I am astonished that the Conservatives are apparently working themselves up to oppose something that, judging by their facial expressions, no one believes in any sense to be the case. As a Conservative, the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should recognise that we do not necessarily have to do everything all at once. As regards constitutional reform, I have never argued that we should do everything all at once. This is a reform that we can undertake now. It is in the interests of the Conservatives to accept this-it is not remotely party political-and they will get themselves into a ridiculous position if they do not. Then we will have made small progress towards the ultimate goal of full reform, to which we and the Liberal Democrats are completely committed, not only in principle but as a priority. I very much hope to hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that he is committed to that, too.

John Redwood: We have had 12 years of a Labour Government with a big majority, but there has been no phase 2, because it has been too difficult. When does the Secretary of State believe there could conceivably be a phase 2, and what political circumstances would bring it about?

Jack Straw: My belief is that there will be a phase 2 if we are re-elected at the next election, and there ought to be a phase 2 if any other party is. All three parties are signed up to the detailed proposals that were encapsulated in the White Paper that I published in the summer of 2008. There is some detail to which they are not signed up, as is made clear in the White Paper, but the basic principle of an 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. elected Chamber is in place, as is the detail of how it can be achieved. The relevant clauses, which are quite complicated, will be published. By the time of the election, the matter will have been the subject of four years of active work by all parties, officials and lawyers.

Richard Shepherd: Some of us take a slightly different view. The Secretary of State has said that it was absolutely absurd to have hereditary peers, but to some of us it is absolutely absurd to have appointed peers as legislators.

Jack Straw: The difference is that life peers are at least appointed on their own merit. Since the hon. Gentleman mentions the matter, let me deal with the provenance of some of the people who have been elected as hereditary peers in by-elections. Take, for example, the Earl of Stair. His is a Scottish peerage created in 1703 for the lawyer and statesman John Dalrymple, who was Secretary of State for Scotland until he was forced to resign for his responsibility for the massacre of Glencoe. That was how he got in the House of Lords, and it is only because of what his great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did at the beginning of the 18th century that the current Earl could even stand as a candidate. Or take the original Earl of Glasgow, who was one of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty of Union. Everybody who negotiated the treaty benefited directly in some form or another, and in his case he was given a peerage.

Pete Wishart: Those are two Scotsmen.

Jack Straw: That is not my objection in the least, and I am glad that they are Scotsmen. My objection is because life peers at least have to show some merit, whether or not they are party appointees.  [Interruption.] Yes they do. They have to show more merit now, because of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Dominic Grieve: rose-

Mark Field: rose-

Jack Straw: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the two hon. Members who are standing, beginning with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield.

Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State asked a moment ago, rhetorically, whether we really object to this measure. He noted that we have treated it with some humour, and indeed it is a humorous topic in many ways. However, why should we not hold the Government to their promise? He cannot get away from the fact that the promise that was made in 1999 was exactly that, and he is about to break it. What possible justification is there for doing that?

Jack Straw: I am sorry, I do not accept that for a moment. We can argue about how long the transitional period should be, but no one anticipated 10 or 11 years ago that we would be in this position. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, should be the last person to claim that one Parliament should be able to bind its successors.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: No; the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question, and I am giving him an answer.
	Moreover, it must be true-the noble Lord Steel, who as far as I know believes in an appointed Chamber, has made the same point-that the principal arrangement in respect of which the original commitment was given concerned the 90 hereditary peers who were retained. The by-elections came later. Yes, we confirmed them, but the original deal was in respect of those 90 peers. Now we have the completely absurd, risible system of by-elections, which cannot continue.

Mark Field: rose-

Douglas Hogg: rose-

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), as I said I would, and then I will make some progress.

Mark Field: The Lord Chancellor wishes to belittle the Earl of Stair and the Earl of Glasgow, but doubtless if they had been large-scale donors to the Labour party, they would have been welcomed as life peers for the remainder of their days.
	The Conservatives would be quite happy to go along with clause 29, if the Lord Chancellor had been true to his word. We made it clear in a Division in the House almost three years ago that we wanted to see how phase 2 would pan out, with an 80 or 100 per cent. elected House. Had he introduced that at the same time as the clause, we would have had no objection whatever, but our objection is the only safeguard to ensure that there is going to be a proper phase 2. Without it, we could wait 100 years, as he and Asquith have pointed out, to get rid of the remaining hereditaries. The risk is that if we allow clause 29 to go through, within 30 or 40 years, there will be no further reform, and the Government will have got their way.

Jack Straw: That is a kind of Trotskyist argument, if I may say so. The Trotskyists used to argue that running sores should be kept running to raise consciousness, and so hasten the revolution. My view is very different. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 29. All he would see is a measure for the abolition of the by-elections. There have been only 10 since the system was established, but they have become absurd.

Douglas Hogg: rose-

Jack Straw: I will give way in one second, but I want to make progress.
	The first point raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was not worthy of him. I have criticised the system by which a Liberal Democrat and a Labour peer were elected. We do not like the arrangements. I do not know whether any of those people were donors to any party, but I am sure they are all worthy. However, it would be far better-this is my last point before I listen to the debate-

Douglas Hogg: Will the Justice Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: Of course I am going to give way-I always give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman-but I just want to finish my sentence. I have not got to my last point, which is an explanation of why the measure is not to worst the Conservative party.

Douglas Hogg: Before I ask my question may I just declare an interest? I am an hereditary peer and thus have a contingent interest in all this- [ Laughter. ]
	I rise not only to support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said, but to add this gloss: we are talking about not only a promise, but part of a deal-the Justice Secretary has conceded that. Had that deal and promise not been made, the previous measure would not have got through. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is not only breaking a promise, but abrogating a deal that gave him a positive benefit, namely the measure that he would otherwise not have had.

Jack Straw: First, that might have been a reasonable point if we were proposing to abolish all 90 hereditaries without putting anything else in place, but we are not. Secondly, when the noble Lord Irvine had to accept the amendment to the original proposal, which came later-the original deal was struck in May, but the amendment was made in October-he said:
	The transitional House will be of short duration, but let us proceed on the hypothetical assumptions that it might last for more than two or three years-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1999; Vol. 606, c. 169.]
	and so on. They were not talking about a whole decade and no one anticipated that.

Dominic Grieve: rose-

Jack Straw: I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman and he can make his own points in his own way in a moment. I hope that I have spelled out just how ridiculous the current arrangement is.
	My last point is whether any part of the measure is aimed surreptitiously at shifting the party balance against the Conservative party by the back door-it is a matter of record that there are very many more Conservative hereditary peers than Liberal Democrat or Labour hereditaries. The answer to that question is no. We have long been committed to the principle that no single party should have an overall majority in the Lords and that there should be broad parity between the two main parties, which there is. We are not going to undermine that principle.
	The death of an hereditary peer can, like the death of a life peer, be taken into account in nominations of new peers, in exactly the same way as if the reduction of a party's representation in the House had been caused by the death of a life peer. I am afraid that I have not met the Earl of Stair, but if he is a man of great merit and a Conservative- [ Interruption. ] He is a Cross Bencher, so let us take the Earl of Cathcart, whose title is of even greater original antiquity. If he is of great merit and commends himself to the leader of the Conservative party, there is no reason why he should not be at the top of the list for nomination by the party as life peer, subject to consideration by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That is a sensible way to approach this issue. In that case, the leader of a political party-or HOLAC in the case of Cross Benchers-is measuring the relative merits of the candidates against others who have not been lucky enough to be born the son of a hereditary peer.
	When the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) leaves this place, he will no doubt add himself to the electorate of the Conservative peers, and he may seek election if there is a by-election and if this provision is not accepted. On the other hand-I do not wish to damage his chances-he is of sufficient skill, experience and perspicacity to recommend himself to the leader of the Conservative party for nomination as a life peer, which would be far better.  [ Interruption. ] It is not patronage. That would better in terms of his legitimacy, as well as in terms of the legitimacy of an appointed House.

Pete Wishart: I cannot believe what I am hearing. The logic of what the Secretary of State says is that we should replace hereditary peers with appointed peers. Some of us think that we should get rid of the whole shooting match, because a revising Chamber is unnecessary. Surely the appointment process is just as besmirched as the idea of hereditary peers. Can he tell us how many Labour peers have been appointed because they gave considerable amounts of money to the Labour party?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman knows that we want to move to a wholly or mainly elected Chamber, and that will be for a future House of Commons to decide. I agree with his basic point that an appointed Chamber is not as good as an elected Chamber, but a Chamber appointed on the merits of the people who sit there-whether he happens to agree with them or not-is far better than a Chamber constituted on the merits of its members' long-dead ancestors, the basis that the Conservatives are now trying to defend.
	This is a modest reform. My answer to those who have suggested that we should wait for holus-bolus reform is that this is a running sore and we should do something about it. Because we cannot do everything now does not mean that we should not do anything. I am strongly persuaded by the case that Lord Steele originally made: this is a matter that we can deal with, and we should do so now.

Dominic Grieve: There is one thing on which I have no difficulty agreeing with the Secretary of State, and that is that the arrangements for the election of hereditary peers are a peculiar anomaly. I do not suppose that in 1997, when new Labour was elected to power, anyone could have dreamt that we would end up with such a peculiar arrangement. Whether it is, as the Secretary of State says, a risible arrangement is more questionable. In fact, as he acknowledged, on the face of it these elected peers, from all parties and as Cross Benchers, do remarkably good work in the House of Lords. They do such good work that the principle that they should stay there has been accepted, even if new ones should not be added. I would not, therefore, describe it as risible, although it is certainly peculiar and-I might say-does not sound very new Labour.
	As the Secretary of State will recollect, the new Labour manifesto said:
	As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.
	That appeared in that wonderful document called, New Labour: because Britain deserves better.
	The fact is that, as was rightly pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when the matter came to be debated in this House and the other place, the Government decided that they could not get their business through and did not wish to push it through under the Parliament Act. They therefore negotiated, in the other place, and came to a deal. I must say that the deal is very un-new Labour and is redolent with terminology that takes one straight back to the 19th century. All the tribute for that goes of course to Lord Irvine, who is a slightly 19th century figure.

Douglas Hogg: Seventeenth century.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct, because the derivation of the idea is almost certainly the fact that-this has not been raised-at one time not all Scottish peers had the right to sit in this place, and instead elected a group of their number to do so.

Douglas Hogg: And Irish peers.

Dominic Grieve: Irish peers, too. I suspect that that is where Lord Irvine got his idea from, and doubtless Lord Cranborne, with his family's long record of service to the country, had the same idea.
	It is worth considering for one moment what Lord Irvine said at the end of that process. I only quoted a small bit of it to the Lord Chancellor, but I think that these words should be engraved above the chair in the office where he sits, and probably over his bed:
	The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent. Like all compromises it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise... a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place.-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]
	The Secretary of State tells us that times have moved on. He also pointed out-I do not disagree with this-that this Parliament is sovereign and that if it decides to change its mind, it can. I am not actually very concerned about what this Parliament does; I am concerned about what he does. He was one of the Privy Councillors who negotiated the deal on Privy Council terms, and so was the Prime Minister, because they were all members of the Cabinet that ratified Lord Irvine's solemn and binding pledge. So why should we today release him from that obligation, particularly given that he has not made any credible case for getting rid of these elected hereditaries, who seem on the evidence to be carrying out a perfectly reasonable job in frankly no more anomalous a way than all the appointees who are also present in the upper House?
	In truth, there is no justification for such action, apart, I suppose, from a rather new Labour desire to renege on a past promise. If that is the philosophical basis on which the Secretary of State wishes to argue this case, it would be sensible if he were to stand up and acknowledge it now, and at least then we would know where we all stand. As it happens, I think that he is bound by that promise in honour, and I do not see why I should facilitate him dishonouring his own promise, particularly given that there is no rational reason for doing so.
	In addition to that, we have to face up to some realities. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and in particular to his acknowledgment that there needed to be Conservative peers in the other place and that there was a Government commitment to having a balance of appointed peers between the parties, until that day when we reach a final resolution on a second stage of reform. However, as he knows, the reality is that the composition of the upper House has increasing elements of imbalance, some of which are dictated by age and the fact that peers of certain parties are much older than those of other parties, and by the fact that the total number of Labour peers appointed by Mr. Blair during his period in office as Prime minister was 163. In contrast, 45 Conservatives were appointed in that period. Although there were certainly imbalances at the beginning of that period, they were largely removed when most of the hereditaries went.
	Since the present Prime Minister came to office, we have had four Conservative peers appointed in the other place, nine Labour peers, two Liberal peers and 11 Cross Benchers. The truth-I think that the Secretary of State will acknowledge this-is that while we wait for the final stage of reform to take place, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the necessary scrutiny of Government legislation in the other place. From our point of view, the continuing election of the hereditaries remains a key way of ensuring that working peers can get in and be maintained, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has shown such a curmudgeonly approach to facilitating proper scrutiny.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that clause 29 should not stand part of the Bill because the second-stage reform has not taken place. That would be a more credible argument if I felt that his party were champing at the bit to bring forward a second-stage reform, so let me simply ask him this. What commitment will the Conservative manifesto in this year's general election make to bringing through a wholly or largely elected second Chamber?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly that the Conservative party's position is that it wishes to have a largely elected second Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were votes on that in the House, when there appeared to be a majority in favour of a largely elected second Chamber. That is where we stand.

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: In just a moment.
	However, the Government have at no stage said that they are about to implement a final stage of reform. If they felt that having a largely elected second Chamber was impossible, they could decide that, as a final stage of reform, they would have a largely appointed second Chamber, but we simply do not have anything.

Jack Straw: I forgive him, but the hon. and learned Gentleman was evidently not listening to what I was saying. We are indeed about to move to that final stage, and we are about to publish the draft clauses for that. We have had three and a half years of intensive cross-party discussions, and we have taken them to the next stage.

Eleanor Laing: You have had 11 years.

Jack Straw: The hon. Lady knows very well that for six and a half of those 11 years, there was no agreement either within the parties or between them, and things have to be done on a cross-party basis. There is now that agreement. To pick up the question that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) asked, I want to know whether, subject to going through the small print of those clauses, the Conservative party will say that, whatever position the Conservatives are in after the election, they will give those proposals the same enthusiastic welcome that this side will give and which I suspect-although they know how to speak for themselves-the Liberal Democrats will give as well.

Dominic Grieve: If I may say so, I am not quite sure what proposals I am supposed to give an enthusiastic welcome to. Let me remind the Secretary of State that last year the Government published another document-previously we had Britain deserves better, whereas this one, published on 29 June 2009, was called Building Britain's Future. Let us remind ourselves of what it says:
	We have already pursued a radical programme of reform in the House of Lords, including reducing the number of hereditary peers who sit in the House from about 750 to 92 today.
	That is not so radical, we now discover: apparently it is an anomaly, but I leave that one aside. The document continues:
	But fairness and the democratic principle require that the people's representatives are chosen by the people. The Government plans to legislate in the 2009-10 session for the next steps on House of Lords Reform by completing the process of removing the hereditary principle from the second chamber. And, building on the Government's White Paper published last July, which committed us to an 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected House of Lords-reflecting the will of the Commons expressed in a free vote in 2007-we will pursue the final phase of Lords reform by bringing forward a draft Bill for a smaller and democratically constituted second chamber.

Michael Wills: The hon. and learned Gentleman's position on these matters is usually so clear, but I would be grateful if he could bring a little more clarity to his own position on reform of the House of Lords. He has told us which proposals he would not give an enthusiastic welcome to. In an attempt to get an answer to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), I should like to ask him to which proposals on House of Lords reform he would give such a welcome.

Dominic Grieve: The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he supports a largely elected second Chamber, and wishes to see that implemented.

Edward Leigh: I put it to the Lord Chancellor that the whole purpose of this risible arrangement was to force reform. Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that there are many Conservative Members who believe that what we have is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement, and that we do not want an elected second Chamber full of pitiful clones? Will he confirm that, when, as we all hope, we get into power, there will be a free vote on this matter?

Dominic Grieve: I am afraid that I cannot confirm anything of the kind to my hon. Friend. I acknowledge that there is a wide spread of views on this matter, and it is certainly clear from the votes that took place in the upper House that many people there want a largely or entirely appointed second Chamber. If the Government put in place an entirely appointed second Chamber, with a structure in place for its long-term management, they could claim that as a proper second stage. The point at issue this afternoon is that we do not have a second stage at all. We are being asked to vote on a series of piecemeal measures that amount to little more than gimmickry, because they will have absolutely no impact on the way in which the upper House operates.

Tony Wright: I do not feel that we have quite got to the bottom of the Opposition's position. When the Leader of the Opposition went to talk to the Conservative peers some time ago, he was widely reported-including by those who were there-as having said that this was a third-term issue for the Conservative party. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is indeed the Leader of the Opposition's position?

Dominic Grieve: I think that I have made the position extremely plain. The plain words of the Leader of the Opposition are that he believes that there has to be reform of the upper House, and that it should be a largely elected second Chamber. I should like gently to point out, however, that we are debating the Government's proposals, not our proposals. If we could have an election tomorrow, we could then go off and discuss all these matters. At the moment-prior to the election-the Government are asking us to agree to further piecemeal reform which amounts to little more than a piece of gimmickry and, furthermore-I hope that I use these words advisedly-in the light of Lord Irvine's comments, dishonours them. It is a flagrant breach of trust in regard to what they have collectively said.

John Redwood: Did my hon. and learned Friend know that, when I asked the Lord Chancellor to give us a timetable for honouring his promise, there was no such timetable and, clearly, no Government intention to bring forward reform because they know that it would be logjammed in the Lords?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I did know that. For those reasons, the Government appear to be trying to find a gimmick with which to divert attention from their failure to implement their own policy pledges or to come up with any alternative if their policy pledges are incapable of being implemented.

Hugh Bayley: In answer to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would not guarantee a free vote for Conservative Members on a second stage of reform to create a wholly or largely elected second Chamber. Can he give me an assurance that there would be a whipped vote on that issue in both Houses of Parliament in the first term in which a Conservative Government were in office?

Dominic Grieve: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no; I shall do no such thing. I have told him and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said and what constitutes party policy. That is where we stand. Today, we must decide whether the clause under consideration has merit and deserves the support of the House.

Jack Straw: May I follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase? Is it correct that the Leader of the Opposition told Conservative peers that this was a third-term issue?

Dominic Grieve: I was not present at the meeting.  [Interruption.] I might add that I would be very surprised if the hon. Member for Cannock Chase had been present, unless he entered as a poltergeist. We should focus on what the Leader of the Opposition says in public, and on how we have voted in public. The Secretary of State's tactic seems to be diversionary-more displacement activity, in which, as I have said to him previously, he appears to have specialised in recent months. I suppose that that is the hallmark of the successful politician.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend talked about gimmickry. Does he agree that the chances of the Bill becoming law are now negligible? It will probably have a sixth day of consideration, which will be about the time of the February recess. The Bill will then go to the other place, which will not pass it by the time of dissolution. The Bill is a gimmick that has no prospect of becoming law.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. What he says has been apparent as the Bill has proceeded, which is regrettable because we agree with the Government that parts of the Bill are very desirable. However, the Government seem to spin out the Bill for longer and longer by introducing extra measures.
	When the Secretary of State reflects on the matter, I would like to think that he will view Opposition Members wishing to protect him from dishonour as not a bad thing. For those reasons, we will seek to have the clause, which is a hallmark of the Government's utter bad faith on the matter, removed from the Bill.

Tony Wright: I have just two points to make. The references to Lord Irvine give me a certain nostalgic pleasure, as they remind me that the apotheosis of my parliamentary career was being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Irvine during the period in question. I remember well much of what is being discussed. I have also spent more time than I care to remember deliberating on reform of the House of Lords. Until today, I had taken a vow that I would not deliberate further on the matter. I have come to the rather dismal conclusion, fortified by more than a century of history, that there will not be a big bang as far as House of Lords reform is concerned. At the very least, there will be a series of rather minor bangs, which will be entirely in the tradition of how we do things: we shall muddle along, we shall deal with problems as they arise, we shall do a bit of tidying up, and, in any foreseeable future, we shall probably not do a great deal more than that. We shall go on having such debates at great length, with great interest, into a very pleasant infinity.
	That has always been the nature of House of Lords issues, and I am sure that it will be ever thus. It could have been different. I never quite understood why a reforming Government with a large majority treated the reform of the House of Lords differently from other major constitutional issues. We had a settled position on freedom of information, devolution and a range of constitutional reform issues. We used our majority in the House to implement such proposals. In the case of House of Lords reform, we did not. We sought to construct what was never there; a majority for a consensus position in the House. The late Robin Cook worked tirelessly to achieve that end and it collapsed around him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has spent more parts of his life than he probably cares to acknowledge trying to work towards some sort of solution. There will not be a solution in any near future. A great reforming moment may come again in a different political cycle but that moment in this cycle has gone.
	The answer to the question posed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is to say that it was not intended to be like this, although what was intended was never very clear. There was to be a kind of amorphous stage 2 that was going to do things of a rather more significant kind to the House of Lords, but the mountain has turned out to be a mouse. There is nothing exceptional about that; that is often the way of these things. The truth is that the various provisions of the Bill are looking at a kind of stage 2. There will probably be a stage 3, a stage 4 and probably a lot of other stages along the way. That will not be because anyone intended that to be the case; as I said, the late Robin Cook tried heroically to forge a stage 2 of a rather major kind and to persuade the House to move in a big reforming direction. The House instead preferred to play games and the whole thing collapsed. There was a good intention to try to move the House towards a serious reform position but the House was not to be moved on a consensus basis in that way.
	What we have is a stage 2 that deals with a number of immediate problems. It does a bit of tidying up of a necessary kind. It deals with the absurdity of elections of the hereditary peers. It deals with resignations and with removals. I wish it also dealt with putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis; that would be a sensible bit of tidying up. That is what stage 2 is; if it is seen in that way, it is a recognition of political reality, which indicates that we will go on having further stages beyond this.

Douglas Hogg: It is most ingenious argument but is it not rather like the Government saying in respect of the Lisbon treaty and their undertaking to hold a referendum on it that it was not a treaty? The hon. Gentleman is saying that a bargain should be dishonoured because we now have stage 2. That is palpable nonsense.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that but I will resist the temptation to have the Lisbon treaty argument all over again.

Dominic Grieve: Is not it even more of a nonsense? The only element of the stage 2 that can be identified is the reneging on the previous promise. Apart from that, none of the list of subjects concerning the House of Lords that we will debate this afternoon is germane to the main issue of House of Lords reform at all. The only element of change is that stage 2 will now be the ditching of the solemn and binding promise that was made previously.

Tony Wright: As I have tried to explain, as someone who was reasonably close to the issue, stage 2 had an amorphous quality; it had an intention and an ambition attached to it. There were attempts to fulfil that ambition. They failed. In the event of that failure, what does the House do? It tries to do the things it thinks it can do. That is why stage 2 has become the component parts of this Bill that are sensible and worthy of support.
	My second point on the clause about the ending of the by-elections for hereditary peers is this; in some ways, this provision demonstrates a remarkable generosity of spirit. It invites the question; why are we treating the second tranche-the remaining hereditary peers-differently from the first tranche? The first tranche was dealt with by a cull, because it was believed that it had to be removed from the House of Lords. The second tranche, having endured for a further 10 years, is to be removed not by a cull, but by a process of natural attrition. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us how young the youngest remaining member of the hereditary peerage is, we know that it will go on for many decades.
	I am perfectly prepared to accept this provision, because it is a way of making progress and getting some sort of support for a package of proposals. However, I think that it is generous, and it would have been open to the Government and to the House to say that the time has come to bring the hereditary peerage to a close. We have not said that; we have offered a very generous transitional arrangement. On that ground alone, it probably deserves support.

David Howarth: I fear that there might be something in what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) just said. I wish to start my contribution by citing the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which states:
	whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.

Andrew MacKinlay: They didn't mean it either.

David Howarth: That immediately was said in 1911. The hon. Gentleman says that they did not mean it. The Liberals did mean it then, although there might well have been an internal compromise within the parliamentary party not to attempt to go further and to put that promise into the Act.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, given that this was Asquith's Government, the Cabinet at the time was very much against women having a vote. Thus, one wonders what the popular vote that they had in mind in 1911 might have entailed.

David Howarth: I suspect that the factions on women having the vote and on going further on House of Lords reform might well have been the same; the Cabinet was also split on that.
	I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the Secretary of State, and it appears that it might be another 100 years before that promise is fulfilled. I have heard the Secretary of State's statements and speeches on this issue for the past five years and it seems that we have got very little progress out of him towards the ultimate goal of the reconstitution of the second Chamber on a popular basis. A number of documents have been published, including two White Papers during my time in this place, yet apart from one vote on the Floor of the House, which had no binding consequences, no progress has been made towards reconstituting the House of Lords on a popular basis. When listening to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, I got the distinct impression that there will be no enthusiasm for introducing specific proposals to this House early on during the time of any Government of whom he is a part.

Jack Straw: The Conservative party must speak for itself, although it is having great difficulty on this matter, but I must say, for the Government, that the hon. Gentleman parodies all the work that has been done, including by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). We laboured long and hard in the cross-party group to reach a position, 96 years after the 1911 commitment, where at long last clear agreement was reached by the House. Such agreement had eluded us for all that period; we did not get it before the war, in the '60s or in 2003. We got that agreement, and we produced the details in the 2008 White Paper and then what amounts to the guts of a draft Bill-that is real progress.

David Howarth: We were happy to take part in those discussions, but we were frustrated all the way through that one discussion had to lead to another discussion and then to another discussion. The Liberal Democrats have been clear about our policy since 1911, and the fact that everybody else seems to take such great time to come to the same conclusion and then not to implement it is a source of even greater frustration.

Douglas Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that even among those of us who believe in a wholly or largely elected second Chamber-I am in that camp-there is a great division of opinion on how, and on what basis, its Members should be elected. On that second issue-the nature of the franchise and the nature of the election-there is considerable division of opinion, and it is that, as much as anything, that stands in the way of rapid progress.

David Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that there is that difference of opinion, but it seems to me that we have never got to that important part of the debate. However, we are not talking about that issue, but about the abolition of by-elections for the hereditary peers. I still come back to his Front Benchers' lack of enthusiasm for progress; the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) was right to ask about that.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned the phrase, third-term issue, which has been bandied about, and which the Leader of the Opposition perhaps used. It is not clear whether he used the phrase, but it is clear that in  Total Politics magazine last year, when asked about House of Lords reform, he said:
	to be frank it is not an urgent priority.
	That is on the record.

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am one of the most committed supporters of a democratic second Chamber, but even I would balk at bringing in a measure for that purpose at this time, given the debt crisis and the deficit crisis. Everybody knows that taking through such a measure would result in some kind of constitutional upheaval, and possibly a crisis. The public would find it utterly incomprehensible if we engaged in a battle like that for a year or so, while distracting attention from the crucial tasks that most affect people's livelihoods.

David Howarth: The trouble with that argument is that it assumes that economic management is a matter of legislation; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, above all others, does not agree with that. Economic management is a matter of Government policy away from the legislative process. Constitutional reform is a separate matter that we can continue to work on, whether there is a crisis or not.

Michael Wills: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the height of the second world war, the foundations of the welfare state, including the national health service, were laid, but that that did not distract the Government from the life-and-death struggle that was going on? There is no reason why constitutional reform should be a distraction from dealing with questions of economic management.
	Secondly, it is clear from this debate what we must do if we are to achieve the necessary consensus on wholesale reform of the House of Lords-I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with us Labour Members that that reform is necessary. The Government have pledged that in the next term of a Labour Government, we will implement the draft clauses that we will publish, subject to any amendment as a result of discussion. Does he agree that the major obstacle to any consensus on wholesale, much-needed reform of the House of Lords is the attitude of the Conservative party?

The Chairman: Order. The debate is getting ever wider. It is a high-quality debate, because there are right hon. and hon. Member present who have a great deal of expertise, but I think that we have just reached the point where I need to remind the Committee that we are discussing a particular matter-that is, whether clause 29 should stand part-so I would encourage a little more concentration.

David Howarth: Thank you for that encouragement, Sir Alan. I will not go into any detail in my response to the Minister, except to say that he is right on his first point. On his second point, the Conservative party's attitude is not the only obstacle to reform. Under the present Government, there has been a very long period in which reform could have been taken further forward but was not. Part of the problem is the notion that there has to be absolute consensus. I do not think that one will ever reach that point. There comes a point when one has to take the bull by the horns and take reform forward.
	I share some of the frustration that Conservative Members feel about the clause, and I share the frustration about the point on piecemeal reform. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cannock Chase is right that all that we can hope for is piecemeal reform, but we should be bolder than that-indeed, we should have been bolder than that before now. It is immensely frustrating for those of us who do not accept the hereditary principle that all that the clause proposes is the ending of the by-elections. We Liberal Democrats were never party to the various deals and arrangements between Lord Irvine and the Marquess of Salisbury. Those are the kind of deals in which, perhaps fortunately for us, we are never asked to take part. So, we are seeing this from the outside.
	Although the Secretary of State is quite right that the process removed by clause 29 is risible, it seems to us that the hereditary principle is as risible and that there is no reason why there should be hereditary peers in our Parliament at all. The Government have promised action on this several times going back to the 2003 Queen's Speech and in five White Papers since then, but nothing has happened. I am as frustrated by that as any radical Member of this House going back to 1911, but that frustration should not mean that we vote against the clause. Inadequate as it is, it is still progress towards getting rid of an absurdity.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is claiming great purity for not being part of this shoddy deal. Of course, when the Liberals were last in government they were precisely part of a shoddy deal. One can be pure only when one is in opposition.

David Howarth: I am not saying that all deals are shoddy, but this particular deal was one that excluded us and, as has been explained, was a method of getting a Bill through the House that did not go far enough from our point of view. We have been consistent in our policy about this for a long time and our exclusion from that deal follows from the fact that our policy has always been clear.
	It comes back to the question whether this clause should be supported in itself. It is a very minor reform but, as the Secretary of State says, it gets rid of absurd elections. He mentioned the election when there were 11 candidates and three voters. The winning candidate won by 2:1-after extra time and a penalty shoot-out, no doubt. It sounds like something from Blackadder. Lord Steel mentioned in the debate on his Bill in the other place that even Old Sarum had 11 voters and would have higher turnouts than these elections in the Lords.
	The only argument that has been put forward for voting against the clause is that which the Secretary of State rightly calls the Trotskyist argument-the Tory-Trotskyist argument-that the situation is so awful and so silly that such action would encourage further reform. It is possible that that might work, but the only problem is that this has been the situation since 1998. It has not worked yet and shows no sign of working in the future. Even though it is quite right for Members of the Conservative party to berate the Government for reneging on a deal, if that is what it was, they should nevertheless not reject this clause.

Andrew MacKinlay: I take notice of your earlier injunction, Sir Alan, to focus on the clause, but, like most people here I am disappointed that in the 11 years for which we have had a Labour Government we have not moved faster on this and brought forward a democratically elected upper House. My dream was that I might one day be the first of the new and offer myself as a candidate for an elected upper House. I do not think that that will happen, but we do need to move this on. I welcome the measures that the Justice Secretary is introducing by bringing this Bill to the House and, at least on the margins, altering the present arrangements. I also look forward to draft proposals that will be enacted in the next Parliament if Labour is returned to office. I welcome that.
	The principal Opposition spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), may suggest from the Dispatch Box that because undertakings were given by Lord Irvine to Lord Cranborne, I am somehow committed to them, but I must say that that is not so. There may well have been agreements between so-called Privy Counsellors, but those of us who are nature's privy counsellors, to paraphrase Tony Hancock, think that such agreements have to be abrogated sometimes.

Dominic Grieve: I have considerable sympathy with that view. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is bound by anything, but the Secretary of State was a Privy Counsellor at the time and a party to the agreement. The hon. Gentleman may think that it is rather extraordinary to renege on an undertaking that had been expressed by Lord Irvine in such solemn form.

Andrew MacKinlay: I can only speak for myself, but one of the paradoxes is that Viscount Cranborne and one or two other hereditaries are the most radical advocates of reform. The history shows that he had to persuade and show leadership to some very conservative people who did not want change, for a whole range of selfish reasons.

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The hon. Gentleman is not bound by anything, but members of his Front-Bench team are. A solemn undertaking to the House should not be abrogated. He should not support an abrogation, even though he himself is not personally committed to that undertaking.

Andrew MacKinlay: I know what the noble viscount says, but I do not agree with him. I certainly want to see this Parliament be much more effective. I am one of those who believes that, despite the perverse constitution of the other place, its role and function are extremely important.
	As I look around this Chamber today, I see an overwhelming majority of colleagues who believe that we should not go to one Chamber of Parliament but that we should instead enhance and buttress an arrangement that will be an impediment and a frustration to arbitrary Government. That is what is most needed: we must diminish the opportunities that arise, under the House of Commons' majority system, for parliamentary dictatorship, with things being ill thought out and railroaded through.
	By-elections are the core of this clause, and reference has been made to the practice of the Scots and Irish peers, but I do not think that one can use the Scottish peerage to buttress the change proposed by the Government today. Up to the 1950s, the Scottish representative peers were elected for each parliamentary Session. They met in the Parliament House in Edinburgh, and had an election to determine who should come to this place.
	The Irish peerage is much more interesting. Under the Act of Union 1800, the Irish peers would elect their representative peers for life. When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 came into force, the existing peerage was allowed to wither on the vine. The last Irish representative peer was the fourth Earl of Kilmorey, who I think expired in 1957 or thereabouts. Colleagues in this House will recall Richard Needham, who became the fifth Earl of Kilmorey and did distinguished service here as a Northern Ireland Minister.
	Members of the Irish peerage could have argued that the change amounted to a reneging on the Act of Union and that the existing arrangement should have been in place in perpetuity. However, that arrangement was broken by the 1920 Act, when common sense prevailed and the existing Irish peers were allowed to wither on the vine.
	Alternatively, a person with a hereditary peerage who loses his right to sit in the other place can be nominated for a life peerage by his political party. That has happened, and I think that it is implicit in what the Justice Secretary is proposing. A great example is the late Earl of Longford. He did not sit in the House of Lords under that title, although we always knew him as the Earl of Longford by virtue of his Irish peerage. He was there as Baron Packenham, a title that was personal to him.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of detail, Lord Packenham was made a life peer before he became an hereditary.

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, I acknowledge that, but he could not have gone into the House of Lords as the Earl of Longford. That is the point. To complete the picture, he was one of the most distinguished, because he was Baron Packenham for life and the Earl of Longford, and I think he was given a further life peerage when an adjustment was made in the House of Lords a few years ago.
	Indeed, an awful lot of funny things have gone on. There was a Viscount Hailsham who managed to renounce his peerage and return to this House of Commons. Later, along with the 14th Earl of Home, he went back to the House of Lords as a mere baron-the ignominy!

The Chairman: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps that composite picture might now be considered complete?

Andrew MacKinlay: You have been most patient, Sir Alan.
	The Conservative party is embarrassed as there are an awful lot of Conservative backwoodsmen up in the Lords who are desperately anxious about the loss of privilege and they are struggling to square this reform, but it is modest and surely most sensible people should accept it in the hope that whoever forms the next Government immediately makes proposals to create a democratic, elected House. The principal Opposition spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, was so embarrassed and so incapable on this reform because it is clearly the intention of any Conservative Government, should there be one, to make any change in at least the second or even in the third term. That is the flaw in his argument.
	I urge the House to take this step forward, signalling to Governments that we want, first, to protect the bicameral system, but, secondly, that we want, as swiftly as possible, the other House to be based on legitimacy provided by some form of democratic election, not on accident of birth.

Douglas Hogg: I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). May I also say-I know I speak on behalf of a lot of Members in this place-how sorry I am that he has decided to stand down? He will be a true loss to the House, and I say that in true friendship.

Edward Leigh: Put him in the House of Lords.

Andrew MacKinlay: You will go a long way in my Government.

Douglas Hogg: Yes, indeed.
	I once again declare my interest: I have a contingent interest in the matter.
	I shall support the position adopted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on clause 29. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock-indeed, like the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth)-I believe strongly in the second Chamber. My remarks on this aspect will be brief, Sir Alan, because I know that you do not want us to go wide of the debate. Those of us who have attended a lot of debates in the House are conscious of how much legislation is not discussed here, and the idea that we should not have a second Chamber that can address that lacuna is deeply troubling. Therefore, and to that extent, I wholly disagree with the observations made by the Scots nats. They are just plain wrong on that.

Jack Straw: Not just on that.

Douglas Hogg: No, not just on that.
	My position has always been to support an elected or wholly elected second Chamber. My basis for that is that I want the powers of the other place to be very substantially increased so that they are more in line with those of a Senate, but I recognise that the only basis for increasing those powers is a proper franchise for constituting the second Chamber.
	However, one problem-I made this point to the hon. Member for Cambridge-is that it is difficult for us to agree the franchise and the nature of the constituencies that would give rise to such an election. That has been one of the important sticking points. I for one would be very sorry indeed to see parties having great control over the selection of candidates for the other place. Moreover, I would want there to be relatively small constituencies. If I could not get that, I would rather stick with what I already have.
	May I briefly acknowledge the role of the hereditaries in the other place? Often, they bring a degree of independence of mind-sometimes eccentric independence-that this place often lacks. It would be very sad if we did not see that continue in the other place.
	I accept that the by-elections are difficult to justify in principle. I agree that I would have difficulty standing on a public platform and defending the exact mode of both by-elections, or any by-election of that kind. That does not, however, cause me to accept the Justice Secretary's proposal, because I have two profound difficulties with it.
	The first-it is a view that I adopt entirely as expressed by my hon. and learned Friend-is the objection to piecemeal legislation. It is very important that we address properly the reform of the second Chamber, and I am against piecemeal legislation because in the end we would remove the incentives for a substantial reform of that other place. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) does not agree with me on this, but I wish to see a substantial change in the nature of composing that other place.
	The second point-I am sorry that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock on this, or with the hon. Member for Cambridge-is that I believe in the binding character of undertakings given by Ministers to Parliament. Perhaps that is because I am a lawyer. The Justice Secretary is a lawyer too. I believe that words once given are binding, unless there is an overwhelming reason why they have to be departed from. There is no doubt at all that a deal was made between Lord Irvine of Lairg and the Marquess of Salisbury-Lord Cranborne, as he then was. That was an agreement. As a result of that agreement, legislation was passed which would not otherwise have been passed. This part of it, the by-elections, in the end formed part of the deal.

David Howarth: I was not implying that what was said to the House should not be binding and honoured. I was simply making the point about privity of contract. It was a deal between two other parties.

Douglas Hogg: I was not trying to attribute to the hon. Gentleman a sentiment that undertakings should not be honoured. If I gave that impression, I apologise to him. It certainly was not my intention.
	When Ministers come to either House, they are committing their party to what they say. My hon. and learned Friend is entitled to say that he will not assist the Government to depart from their word. It is on that principle more than on any other that I stand today. For that reason I shall, with enthusiasm, support the position he has taken.

Hugh Bayley: I feel like an innocent abroad, straying into a debate on constitutional reform, but I have done so because there are some interesting questions up for discussion this afternoon. I was truly surprised as the Conservative argument unfolded. If I were trying to be generous, I would say that they were making the case that the best should be the enemy of the good-that because there was not wholesale reform, they would stand in the way of a small but important step in the right direction.
	I have had conversations with constituents at public meetings who have berated me for the Labour party not seeing through the process of Lords reform. There is surprise among a number of members of the public in a well educated constituency such as mine-I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) nodding-that there are still people in our legislature who draw the basis for their representation from the hereditary principle.
	However, Conservative Front Benchers are not arguing for the ideal. It is clear from the range of contributions made by Conservative Members that they do not think that wholesale reform is ideal. They are extremely divided on the matter. There is opposition from Conservative Members, in this House and the other place, to serious democratic reform, which a majority of Members of this House wish to see. The largest majority of Members wish to see a wholly elected second Chamber, and there is a majority-albeit not quite so large-for a largely elected Chamber, so the view of this House is very clear, as is the public's. When people look at this debate and see which way the Conservative party voted, bang in a puff of smoke will go the pretence that it is a modernising democratic party. They will see the Conservative party supporting hereditary privilege, because that is what it is doing today.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman was present for the indicative votes in this House, so he can see for himself how the House voted. Indeed, there were cross-party positions throughout the House, with people doing slightly different things. However, if he will notice that the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members voted for a largely elected second Chamber. That is my recollection.

Hugh Bayley: The puzzle, then, is why the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his argument to our House today. If his party, root and branch, were wholly committed to radical reform and to creating a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, he would have said so-to ringing applause from his Back Benchers. But he did not, because his party is divided, and he therefore has to manufacture an argument to explain why his party seeks that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: From reading the Government's proposals, which we are debating in Committee of the whole House, not on a substantive motion about the future of the House of Lords, I fail to see that radical reform programme. All I can see is the Government's going back on a solemn undertaking that Ministers, including the Minister present, gave some time ago as part of a reform package. Given those circumstances, that is what we have to consider.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a talented wordsmith, but he is diverting the argument at this point from the fundamental question: does this Committee of the whole House vote in favour of removing the hereditary principle from membership of the House of Lords? There will be a clear vote on that this evening, and people will see that my party and the Liberal Democrat party want reform to remove the hereditary principle from the legitimacy-the appointment-of Members of this Parliament, and that the Conservative party wants to retain it. That is the long and the short of the issue before Parliament.

David Heath: Throughout this debate we have been considering the solemn undertaking, to which we were not party, as Members have already said, and it is important to remember the context in which, and the implied condition on which, it was given. The context and condition were a sense of urgency about the total reform, which we were expecting. That sense of urgency has been extremely difficult to divine, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, in the current Government; and it is impossible to divine, from what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said, in the Conservative party. There simply is no urgency for reform, and that is why the undertaking has so little value, unfortunately.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman puts the point succinctly. In one quotation that was read out to the Committee this afternoon, the expectation in Lord Irvine's mind when the undertaking was given was that the whole process would be finished within two or three years. This is not two or three years later, however; this is two or three Parliaments later.

Richard Shepherd: I respect the hon. Gentleman's urgent wish for radical reform, and I am on board with that, but no one can call a system that could endure for up to 50 years an urgent response to something that many of us in this House seek-an elected and accountable House of Lords.

Hugh Bayley: I am not arguing that clause 29 is the radical, second-stage reform of the House of Lords-nor, I think, are those on the Government Front Bench. It is a good step forward, because it will remove the possibility of any further Members coming to speak and vote in our legislature on the basis of an hereditary principle. That is a modest but important step forward, whereas the radical reform would be wholesale reform along the lines of one or other of the two options that gained support from this House when we voted on the matter. Let us not confuse the two things. This is not the radical reform, but it is an important democratising step forward; and, sadly, the public will see that the Conservative party is opposed to it.

Edward Leigh: During this debate people have been quite disrespectful about Lord Irvine. However, who knows what went on inside that great mind? At one level, what he did was extremely shrewd. He created a system in which a risible way-to use the Lord Chancellor's words-of having by-elections would ensure reform. There has been a lot of debate about this, so I do not need to go over it again. I just want to say-because nobody else has-that, as so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. Everyone who has spoken so far has played the democratic hand and said, What I really want is a democratically elected upper Chamber. Some have argued that we must move along the lines suggested by the Lord Chancellor, and others have expressed another point of view, but nobody has said that what we have ended up with is a great British compromise.
	I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that there is nothing wrong with piecemeal reform, and I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that there is nothing wrong with shoddy backroom deals. This is how the British constitution-God bless it-has always developed.

Douglas Hogg: If one is content with the powers that currently rest in the second Chamber, there is a lot to be said in favour of my hon. Friend's argument. The problem is, however, that if we want to extend the powers of the second Chamber, the current settlement is wholly unacceptable.

Edward Leigh: Accepted-but I am entirely content with the powers that the second Chamber has at present. We all know that there are perfectly sound and good arguments for not increasing the powers of the second Chamber. The second Chamber is a good revising Chamber, it does hard work, and nobody is complaining about the quality of its debates or anything else, so let us leave that on one side. We all know that if we have an elected Chamber, it will be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. Most of this place is stuffed with people looking for ministerial office-why should an elected second Chamber be any different? Why get rid of something that is doing an excellent job?
	However, Mrs. Heal, I do not want to be held to account by you for getting into that wider debate-I want to concentrate on why the compromise brokered by Lord Irvine was a very good one. The Lord Chancellor was extremely rude about the candidates who have been elected under that system. He said that an ancestor of one gentleman had taken part in the massacre of Glencoe-

Jack Straw: rose-

Edward Leigh: Let me finish this point and then the right hon. Gentleman can come back with some bon mot to crush me.
	What is wrong with that gentleman, just because his ancestor took part in the massacre of Glencoe? It is the old argument that Harold Wilson used against the 14th Lord Home. There was a 14th Mr. Wilson, and there is a 14th Mr. Straw. Perhaps, way back, a Mr. Straw took part in a massacre, but the Secretary of State is a worthwhile candidate.

Jack Straw: The difference is that I do not sit in this House because I am the 14th generation after the first Mr. Straw.

Douglas Hogg: You sit here because you were Barbara Castle's private secretary!

Jack Straw: Yes, but that was different.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that I was rude about those who had been elected. I was not; I was mocking how they had become part of that constituency. If they have merit, it could be considered through the merit-based process of appointment to the House of Lords.

Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State was mocking the process because there may be 30 candidates and only 40 electors. I might have got the figures slightly wrong, but I would have thought that that would mean that high-quality people would apply. It may produce a higher quality of elected candidate than if there were 60,000 electors and one elected person. I do not want to be accused of attacking parliamentary democracy, but we should not assume that the people elected under the current system are any less worth while than those appointed to the House of Lords by any other means. I suspect that such is the nature of the competition to get into the House of Lords through that elected route that the candidates with whom we emerge are of a very high standard.
	I do not want to go too far down that road, because that argument suggests that I believe we should defend the constitution entirely in terms of logic. I do not. I defend it in terms of our traditions, our history and what works. Is the royal family entirely logical? Is the House of Lords in any sense entirely logical? Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is entirely right. The logical step forward is to have an elected Chamber, but we all know that if we had one, it would not result in better legislation, so why not leave good alone? This is the tyranny of the logical over the practical and of endless constitutional change over what works.
	Let us think about this for a moment: is what we have got so very bad? There is a vast amount of expertise in the House of Lords, with people who are not politicians and who have worked all their lives in the professions and in business. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they really feel strongly. They do a good job.
	This will be a controversial comment, and I know that I do not carry many people with me, except perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is a sound trooper in this respect. Is there any harm in making a slight bow to our past by having some hereditary peers? The Secretary of State mocks it, but these people are part of history and part of the fabric of what we are. They do not have a great deal of political power. There are only 92 of them, in a revising Chamber, and we know that they have no power to block any legislation that this House sets its heart on.

Gerald Howarth: I am indeed entirely with my hon. Friend. The House needs to bear in mind the fact that so long as the 92 are there, they uphold the hereditary principle and therefore support the monarchy. If they went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. Does he believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.

Edward Leigh: That must be right. I defend the current arrangement as something that, whatever I say, will probably last many, many years. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) is absolutely right that this argument will go on for eternity, and long may it go on. By the way, some argue that the House did a great moral thing and voted for a 100 per cent. or 80 per cent. elected Chamber, but we know that that vote was a farce. Many colleagues deliberately voted for a 100 per cent. elected House of Lords because they knew that no Government would ever wear it.

Andrew Tyrie: indicated dissent.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I know for a fact that many people trooped through the Lobby to vote for the most extreme option precisely to ensure that it never happened. That happens on a lot of occasions in this House, so we should not imagine for a moment that either Front-Bench team or a majority of Members actually want there to be a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber. Do they really want that? Do they want this House battling with, and losing half its power to, an American-style senate?  [ Interruption. ] There may be a few enthusiasts in the Chamber, but we all know it is not going to happen. It will not happen-thank God!-if there is a Conservative Government, and I doubt whether it will happen if there is a Labour Government. I like to think that in 30, 40 or 50 years' time, or perhaps on the hundredth anniversary of the 1999 Act, we will still be debating the matter.

Hugh Bayley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is wholly and utterly opposed to this House adopting electoral arrangements that exclude British citizens who are black, and almost all women, from standing as a candidate. Yet by maintaining this curious, risible system-the words of the Lord Chancellor-for electing 90 of the Members of the other place, we are condoning and endorsing an electoral system that is discriminatory against people of ethnic minorities and women, because they are simply not eligible to be candidates. Surely to goodness that is a good reason to vote tonight to get away from such an absurd electoral system and the hereditary principle.

Edward Leigh: We all know that the House of Lords has changed dramatically in the past 12 years in terms of bringing in minorities. There is absolutely no bar to any of that happening. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating by suggesting that there is a vast hereditary peerage exercising great power, but we know that there are just 92 hereditary peers, and that they are a small part of a revising Chamber.
	At one level, I am saying only that that puts pressure on the Government to bring in real reform, if that is what people want. However, if that does not happen, I argue that the hereditary peers lend colour to the other place. Do we really want an entirely appointed Chamber and to go along with the Canadian model? The Canadian second Chamber is the least effective second Chamber in the western world. Hereditary peers, and the way in which they refresh themselves through by-elections, add something to the House of Lords. They might be younger and different types of people. We could have a House of Lords that is completely diverse in every respect by appointing everyone, but why get rid of a system that works and that creates pressure for progress? I am just a reactionary, and I do not want any progress at all, so I am very happy with the current arrangement.

David Winnick: I am sorry I was called away earlier and so was absent from the Chamber, Mrs. Heal.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has been characteristically blunt and expressed the point of a view of a good number of Opposition Members. Let me say that the official position of the official Opposition is that they want a fully elected second Chamber, but they know, as everybody in this House knows, that had it not been for the Labour victory in 1997, there would have been no change in the composition of the House of Lords, which would have remained a largely hereditary second Chamber.
	Of course, the hon. Gentleman would have liked that to be retained. He spoke about the hereditary principle, but word for word, he gave the reasons that were given in the years prior to 1997. The arguments for continuing with hereditary peers were put as strongly before 1997 as he put them today. As I said in an intervention, because of the Labour Government, 90 per cent. of the hereditaries went. It is true that there was a prior attempt at reform-I was here at the time-but that was in a very different Bill. Perfectly understandably, there was a cross-party alliance between Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. As far as I was concerned, they were right to do what they did, because that measure would not have resulted in the outcome that many Labour Members wished to see.
	The by-elections are indefensible. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who used to represent Grantham, said that he was not in a position to go anywhere publicly and defend them, but if they are indefensible, why should they not be changed? I am in favour of the Government's proposals, because having an electorate of four or five is farcical. It reminds me of the situation before the Great Reform Act, when at least some constituencies had only 20 or so electors. Anything that is so indefensible and, frankly, farcical should not be retained.
	I do not happen to belong to the group-there are some Labour Members in it-who say that the real solution is the abolition of the House of Lords. I do not take that view, because, as in most democracies, there is a strong case for having two Houses. One thing is certain: if we had only the House of Commons, all the blame would be attached to it. Any measure that was shown to be faulty would be blamed on the House of Commons, because we would have responsibility for everything. Having a revising Chamber is right and proper, but I do not want a change that results in increased powers for the House of Lords. Some say that the powers should be equal, but I certainly do not belong to that school of thought. I want the House of Commons to be dominant. I would strenuously oppose, as I hope the majority in the House would, any change that would give added powers to the House of Lords.
	I am certainly in favour of a revising Chamber with no hereditary peers, but I must concede some of the arguments against a fully elected Chamber. Very recently, the House of Commons unfortunately passed, by nine votes-we know how those nine votes were gathered-for 42 days pre-charge detention. I have no hesitation in saying that it gave me a good deal of pleasure that that was rejected by the Lords. I was so pleased that I wrote a letter to  The Times to congratulate the Lords. I doubt whether the measure would have been rejected if there had been a fully hereditary House. It might have been rejected, but if a Conservative Government had been pushing for it in a hereditary House, it would not.
	I accept that a fully elected House of Lords could, to some extent, be a duplicate, whatever the election arrangements. Nothing is perfect, and I accept that there are weaknesses. At the end of the day, a fully elected House of Lords may not be as independent or different from the House of Commons as I would like. That is one of the drawbacks, but all in all, what cannot possibly be defended and justified is for 92 peers to sit in a 21st-century legitimate Parliament simply because their ancestors were given a peerage in the 13th, 15th, 17th or 18th centuries. Surely that is as indefensible as the by-elections that happen when a hereditary peer happens to die. That is why I hope, having done what no other Government have done by ending at least 90 per cent. of the hereditaries, we go further, and end the situation in which 92 hereditaries continue to sit, for the reasons that I have stated. That is indefensible. Any step that can be taken by a future Government to end that would certainly have my support.

Mark Field: I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor's memory may be failing him as to the events of 2002 and 2003-at least that is how it appears from the Chilcot inquiry-but we need to remind him of the reason for some of the 1999 safeguards that he is now seeking to remove. I entirely agree with the sentiments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in that regard.
	Crucially, there is a bloc of 92 remaining hereditary peers, who are kept in place pending stage 2 of House of Lords reform, to which the current Administration have notionally been committed since 1997. I listened with great interest to the passionate speeches from the hon. Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but one must ask why so little progress has been made, given that we have had a Labour Government for the past 13 years who have been committed throughout to a democratic House of Lords, and who have had a huge parliamentary majority during the first eight years and a very satisfactory one in the past five.
	We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), which went into some of the detail of that history. It is perverse-given the radical reforms made in relation to Scottish and Welsh devolution, for example-that the Government have not moved more quickly on this issue, even as a second-term issue.
	An integral part of the present system is the superficially anomalous by-election procedures that have been ridiculed in this debate. However, without such procedures-and we have seen some 12 deaths and 10 by-elections since the 1999 arrangements were put in place-we would see the dying off of all hereditaries and with them the safeguard to which I referred. The history of this issue is clear. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) pointed out, House of Lords reform often sees a short and intense burst of activity followed by many decades in which not much else happens. The worry is that Labour would have zero commitment to stage 2 reform if we did not have this safeguard in place.
	This proposal is the worst sort of partisan gesture by the Government. Weeks before an election, they are dragging up the issue to try to draw a dividing line and portray my party as the party of privilege for the few and not the many.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am truly bewildered by what the hon. Gentleman has said. What incentive will there be for a Conservative Government to make reforms if this proposal is not passed today? He obviously hopes for a Conservative Government, but what would make a Cameron Government introduce comprehensive reform? We have invited his Front Benchers to comment, but there has been silence.

Mark Field: The fact is that we have known for almost three years that the settled will of this House has been for a fully or 80 per cent. elected House of Lords. Why has there been a delay when the Government have had a working majority? That is the issue.

Jack Straw: It is because it has been necessary to translate that decision-the first ever such decision-into legislative proposals and to try to achieve not just agreement across the Chamber but broad, cross-party support. On the issue of the construction of Parliament, I subscribe to the old-fashioned view that it is important that it should not be in the ownership of any one political party. We have worked hard to achieve that, and I am about to publish the major part of a Bill on the issue-I hope that it will have the hon. Gentleman's and his party's active support.

Mark Field: Again, I have to say that that is far too little, far too late. I would understand that argument rather better if the Secretary of State had not introduced the clause at this juncture. We could have waited and incorporated the clause into any new Bill in the next Parliament, if his party were to win the election.
	I have some sympathy-although I do not agree with-the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). In many ways, much of the constitution is not logical. As he rightly pointed out, having a hereditary royal family is not logical and, if we had started with a blank sheet of paper, we would not have had the House of Lords as it existed before 1997. However, we did not start with a blank sheet of paper: we started with many years of history. My hon. Friend's arguments were persuasive in the run-up to the debate in 1999, but I am afraid that the pass has been lost, and that is why we must now move to a fully elected second Chamber, if we are to have such a Chamber at all.
	I am slightly depressed because I fear that my party, if it gets into government, will press ahead and have a raft of new life peers almost immediately both on our side and across the political divide. I wish that we would treat the situation with more urgency and move rapidly towards an elected, democratic second Chamber. In reality, it will be the life peers on both sides who will be the main road block. I endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) when he pointed out that the phenomenal economic difficulties that the incoming Conservative Government will face will mean that their political energy will be directed at correcting those rather than considering some of these grand constitutional issues. As I say, that depresses me, not least because I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) shares many of my views on this matter. However, such reform will not be an early priority as we do not want our programme to become log-jammed by constitutional difficulties that would be inevitable. Conservative life peers would be just as difficult as Labour life peers in trying to prevent the fundamental democratic reform that is close to all our hearts.

Greg Knight: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but does he intend to vote against clause stand part on the basis that he does not like the piecemeal approach, or will he vote in favour because it is a step in the direction in which he wishes to go?

Mark Field: I shall vote with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield because the system is an important safeguard and I want to see clause 29 removed from the Bill.
	Over the past 13 years, the House of Lords has been packed with 174 Labour peers and 66 Conservative peers-402 new members in total. The last thing that we need is yet another sizeable intake of often relatively low-grade members of the House of Lords. I may also be low grade in the House of Commons, but I am elected and in a democracy that matters. Those of us who are standing for re-election will do so some time in the next 15 weeks, and people will have a chance to vote for me or not. We run the risk of having ever more life peers with an unacceptable life-long tenure.
	These issues are very difficult. All of us know that we are potentially getting ourselves logjammed into some major constitutional problems. As a slight aside, it is interesting to note, courtesy of  The Sunday Times, that, in the expenses scandal in the other place, not one of the peers who has taken money for asking questions or for lobbying services-or through their second home allowances-is a hereditary peer. Every one of the 25 or so peers who has so far been accused is a life peer- [ Interruption. ] I am not sure that it is entirely a coincidence. It is wrong that we have packed the House of Lords as we have in the last dozen years. I fear that more is to come.
	If we are to have a fully appointed House of Lords, which is where I fear this clause will eventually lead, I would prefer to see it abolished in its entirety. I hope that common sense will prevail and clause 29 will be vanquished. Whoever forms the next Government, I hope that they will rapidly return to this issue-although I fear that that will not be the case-and ensure that we have a proper, democratic, fully elected House of Lords, whereupon these temporary arrangements for hereditary peers would fall by the wayside.

Richard Shepherd: It is extraordinary that English gentlemen in revolt against the Crown two centuries ago could form a constitution with a second Chamber. They did so for good reason. We are taking for ever, under the Lord High Panjandrum's ministrations, to gain an inch, and then we are retreating. The proposal before the Committee is that the only elected part of the upper Chamber should be abolished and all the appointees should remain in place. What is the difference? I start from a proposition that has always informed democratic debate: those who make the laws should be accountable to those who bear the laws. Yet we have this extraordinary anomaly that the second Chamber, which this Chamber voted to democratise, remains an appointed House. How can that be, and how can it be that I want an elected House down the passageway there-past the tumbleweed?
	An important point needs to be made. Nearly 35 years ago, the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave an important Dimbleby lecture in which he looked at the conventions and party arrangements in this Chamber that made tolerable a concept called the sovereignty of Parliament-all the little checks and balances within our procedures and arrangements. We are driven by the desire to legitimise the House of Lords, so that it can be a proper check and balance. I have been a Member for nearly 31 years, as has my right hon. and learned Friend. During my membership of this House, it has increasingly become a tyranny. Largely, there are no checks and balances within this Chamber-it is the rule of majoritarianism. So it was to the House of Lords that my party turned when, looking forward to an age more democratic than was ever envisaged by the present Government, it voted to accept the concept of an 80 to 100 per cent. elected second Chamber.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I give praise in the extraordinary situation where those Lords act gently as a small check and balance. The cry goes up from whomever is on the Government Benches, This is ridiculous. What legitimacy do they have? This is about the legitimacy of the arrangements in the Lords. Over the years, I have been frustrated by the grip that Governments have had on this House-it has strangled our very legitimacy. We need to have a debate about that. We need checks and balances. That is what all our revolutions were about-to check and balance the power of the Crown. It has taken us a long time to get where we are.
	One hundred years later, we are still trying to grapple with the proposition put forward by the Liberal Government early in the previous century of an elected House of Lords. I do not think that that was cynical. I enjoyed the cheerful cynicism of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)-but that is all it is, in the end. This is a serious proposition regarding the ship of state and the nature of the construction that enables the people of this country to hold to account their Governments. Do we honestly think that we do that?
	So I look beyond this place-I think that many other Members do so, too-for a remedy in the other place. For some years, the few checks on this long cavort have been in the hands of the Secretary of State, sitting on the Bench there. The matter has been danced around, but there is no consensus, and I am as frustrated as anyone about this reform stuck in the Bill. What is it? To get rid of the one elected element of the House of Lords? Are we not to question why 40 per cent. of the Members of the House of Lords come from the south-east of England? Of whom are they representative? They are professional people representing special interest groups. Yet they stand as our last defence in the sorts of causes mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, North-our freedoms, 42-day detention, and our historic rights and liberties. That was our function, but it has gone. So I support my Front-Bench colleagues on this matter. I do not want to trade off, for a gesture by the Labour Government-sinking fast as they are-the little block and niggle that might one day drive us to find a solution for a properly elected, accountable House of Lords.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made a point about franchise. We do not want to replicate this Chamber. We want to give the Lords the democratic legitimacy to say, We think you are wrong. We do not agree. The oldest democratic constitution of which I know is the American constitution. It has survived for more than 220 years, and we are still fiddling with the abolition of the elected Lords, who constitute a small proportion of that House-I say we, but I am not! What do the Government do? Who appoints these Lords? Look at it. I presume that a swathe of retired Conservative Members will be pushed into the Lords, although, of course, that will be to give some balance, and undoubtedly they will be the most competent Members. But why?
	I do not share the cheerful cynicism of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). It startled me in a sense, because it was so weary a speech. Where is the fire and belief that we can accomplish something? Oh, experience of this tired old House has taught me, he told us, that we muddle along, and what difference does it make? Somehow we'll get through it all. That is true, but there is no sense of an ideal there. This place was built in the democratic age on the ideals and aspirations of the party that he represents and on behalf of which the Lord High Panjandrum, the Secretary of State, is now promoting his ambitions. That party was an agent for change. It was not the only one by any means. My own party has had a role in this, as too did the Liberal party and the trade unions. That was the voice of the people. This House used to march to that tune.
	I want checks and balances, so I will not support the clause. By removing elections, the Lord High Panjandrum will feel that he has accomplished something, but he will not have. This has been at root a failure. I cannot discern any successes in any of the policies that he has promoted to the House over 11 years. I will give a prize to whomever can name one. Here we are, dug in, making no progress whatever. We have to reach out and stand for something. Those who make the laws shall be accountable, and furthermore there must be more of the checks and balances that make for proper exchange and debate across this Floor. I shall, therefore, support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in the Lobbies.

Andrew Tyrie: First, I think that it is extremely unlikely that this Bill, and certainly this clause, will end up on the statute book, and I suspect that the Government know that. Nothing controversial will get through in the wash-up, so we are having an academic debate.
	My second point is in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who unfortunately is not here. He talked about the tyranny of the logical and praised reaction. It might surprise him, if he reads  Hansard, to discover that I think there is something to what he says. Burke said that politics ought to be adjusted, not to human reason, but to human nature. There is a lot in that. Institutions, above all, should be organic, and traditions and customs play an important role in that. However, it is also important constantly to be reconciling that organic development with an undercurrent of logic and reason. That is why we cannot carry on with the House of Lords as it is. It is not enough to say that it is refreshing that we have by-elections of hereditary peers and that they add a bit of colour-that was another phrase used-to the other place. That will not do at all. I do not see how I can oppose a clause that will remove the hereditaries, so I shall support clause 29 in the Lobby.
	There are two issues to consider-one of principle and one of political tactics. The issue of principle was not much discussed in the first half dozen exchanges, but it has started to be discussed near the end of the debate. The point of principle is very straightforward-it is the one that we have just heard and which we also heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I
	In the 21st century, there should be no place in our Parliament for people who have inherited the right to make our laws. It is very straightforward. Some people may disagree with that, but there are not many of them and they are completely out of step with the electorate and the spirit of the age. Allowing hereditaries to continue to sit in the second Chamber can only erode the credibility of our Parliament and only weaken the second Chamber, making it more difficult for it to perform a meaningful constitutional role. Clause 29 will do no more than end the absurd by-elections-risible and absurd were the words used by the Secretary of State-that would otherwise keep the hereditaries going in perpetuity under the current legislation. We have had numerous quotations from Lord Steel about Old Sarum, and the absurdity of those by-elections tells its own story. They do no credit to our parliamentary system.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the credibility to which he refers applies equally to all the life peers in the House of Lords? However undesirable and risible the electoral system might be, at least in the election for the Labour vacancy to which we have referred the peer concerned won two votes, which is two more than any life peers have ever won.

Andrew Tyrie: That is a little tough on the life peerage. I do not carry any cards for the life peers, but one can make a case for saying that quite a few of them have done something in life that at some point has led people to think that they will be able to make a contribution. Furthermore, some of them-perhaps some of the unlikely ones who have been put there-turn out to make very good contributions.

John Hayes: rose-

Andrew Tyrie: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I do not want to give way too much, because this debate has gone on for rather a long time and I can sense that that is the mood of the Committee Chairman.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that basis. He always dances elegantly between reason and common sense-indeed, he gave a nod in the direction of conservatism, for which I suppose we must be grateful-but I wonder where, in his attack on hereditary power, he sees the monarchy. I did not know that he was a republican and I am rather surprised to hear that he is. If he is indeed a republican, I would like him to describe his views in slightly more detail.

Andrew Tyrie: I had the impression from that intervention that my hon. Friend thinks, if one is exercising reason, one could not possibly be a member of the Conservative party, but I will have to look at  Hansard to check. As for the monarchy, I cannot see any connection and I am not going to persist.

Sylvia Heal: Order. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is not tempted to stray down that path.

Andrew Tyrie: I am not at all keen to pursue that argument, but if I may be permitted a one-sentence reply, I do not see any necessary connection between retaining the hereditary principle for a constitutional monarchy and having a bicameral elected Parliament.
	This Labour Government should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of the fact that the clause is necessary in the first place. Labour will probably leave office in a few months, having reneged on its crucial pledge to replace the hereditary peerage with a fully democratic House of Lords, and that after 13 years and two Parliaments of gigantic majorities-indeed, they have been unprecedentedly large in modern times. We need to remind ourselves that we are debating clause 29 because Tony Blair-not anybody else-stitched together a cynical deal with Lord Cranborne to retain the hereditary peerage. However, even after the passage of clause 29, it will take another generation for the remaining hereditaries to go. As it happens-and this point has been made by one or two people-many of the remaining hereditaries have been diligent and have tried hard to make the work of the House of Lords more meaningful. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on that point. However, the fact is that there cannot be a place for hereditary legislators in a 21st-century Parliament. That is simply an unanswerable point of principle.
	However, that still leaves the point made from the Front Benches, which deserves a great deal of care and attention, about the question not of principle, but of political tactics. The argument that was used at the time to justify the deal-it was also the one that led my party to vote for it in 1999-was that the hereditaries would be kept as hostages until a more radical and democratic reform proposal came forward. I wish it were like that, but the truth is much more tawdry. It suited both parties to do that deal. It suited Labour to keep a weak House of Lords without a democratic mandate in place for as long as possible, because it knew that it would be in for trouble if it did anything else. As for the Conservatives, the party was in a considerable state of disarray at that time. The Lords were close to open rebellion and Lord Cranborne had to be sacked from the Front Bench-in fact, he was sacked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) shortly prior to that vote. The only semblance of an opportunity to act as a check on the Government, faced with such an unprecedentedly large majority, was the House of Lords, and frankly it was risky to offend it further.
	The truth is that what emerged was a shabby deal that confers little honour on anyone involved. I am not sure whether dishonourable deals confer further dishonour on those parties that break them afterwards, but that is what we need to think about before deciding whether there is any point of honour that should be fulfilled by either side. The idea that we created hostages for change was, in any case, dealt a hammer blow during the passage of the relevant clause in the other place. The amendment was moved by Lord Weatherill from the Cross Benches, who made no secret of his preferences. He let the cat out of the bag when he described the possibility that his amendment might put off further change indefinitely as
	a consummation devoutly to be wished.
	Already more than a decade has passed. Those of us who want a fully functioning democratic second Chamber need to make a judgment: will the retention of the hereditaries be a brake on further reform or a spur to more change? That is a difficult and balanced judgment, but I have come to the conclusion that the hereditaries are not hostages for change or democracy; rather, they are hostages for inactivity and delay. I recognise that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee might disagree with that judgment, but it is the one that I have come to this evening.
	Given that, as I said at the start of my speech, it is unlikely that much or any the proposed legislation will end up on the statute book, the point of principle seems to me to be crucial and, as a matter of a principle, I cannot support in the Division Lobby the retention of hereditary legislators.

Jack Straw: With the permission of the Committee, I would like briefly to respond to part of this debate. I commend all who have spoken for the high quality of the debate-it was witty, too-and for the seriousness of the discussion that has been provoked by the important issue sparked off by this relatively modest clause.
	Let me deal first with the suggestion, made not least by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), that the clause is some partisan device. I say to him and those on his Front Bench: it is not. The only way in which it could conceivably be made a partisan device would be if the Conservative party thought in error that there was some reason, to do with Conservative party philosophy and ideology, that required it to vote against the clause. However, I would suggest that there is no such reason. I do not presume to be as expert on Conservative ideology and philosophy as Conservative Members are; however, I would suggest that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) does have some claim to that. I therefore hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends will take note of the fact that he has just said that he intends to vote, on a point of principle, with the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party for the clause.
	The clause is not remotely partisan; nor is it, just to repeat the point, in any sense designed to harm the Conservatives' representation in the other place. Let us be clear about that. I am glad that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is nodding to suggest that he understands that.
	The clause will not affect any of the existing hereditaries. If the clause becomes law, as I believe it will, it will be open and normal for the leader of the relevant political party to make a nomination in the case of a vacancy following the death of an hereditary peer-as it is in the case of a life peer. Even if those who had been elected as hereditaries had sufficient merit in the eyes of the Conservative party leader, for example, there is every reason for them not to be nominated, for them not to sit in the other place as life peers-measured against the claims of anyone else to sit there in an appointed Chamber-and for them not to be drawn from the completely ludicrous constituencies that have been mentioned. Not a single person who has spoken today has defended that system of election. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that he was not going to take to the stump to defend such a system, and he is quite right; the truth is that it is indefensible.
	Yes, there was a deal, and that is why the 90 ended up in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member for Chichester were to ask whether I would personally have done that deal, the answer would be that I do not think so. I am always careful to say, I do not think so, because it is one thing to score goals from the sidelines, but quite another to be in the shoes of the person taking part in the negotiations. Something that was not shoddy but honourable, however, was the desire of Lord Irvine and the Labour party of the time to try to reach an agreement, and not to use our huge majority to drive through these measures under the Parliament Acts. I have had to use the Parliament Acts on two occasions, and it is not a particularly happy experience.
	It has been suggested that we should not do anything until we did everything, or-in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)-that we should make the best the enemy of the good. All the arguments against doing that remind me of the wonderful skit on academic politics written in 1908 by the Cambridge philosopher, F. M. Cornford. In it, he said
	There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing.
	He then went through all the arguments for not doing things, which included the principle of unripe time, the principle of the wedge and the principle of the dangerous precedent. He concluded:
	It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
	Frankly, the arguments that have been advanced by the Conservatives today come down to the idea that the time is not ripe, given that no one has been prepared to defend the principle of elections of hereditary peers.
	The deal was made 11 years ago, and no one anticipated that we would be here debating this now. We were asked whether we were at the next stage. Yes, we are proceeding to that, and it will happen next month with the publication of the major part of a draft Bill.
	On the issue of the measures being piecemeal, I would simply say that it is possible to parody any legislation at the time of its introduction. With the single exception of the 1689 Bill of Rights, all legislation has been piecemeal. The Reform Act of 1832 was actually relatively modest in scope. It took another 60 years to get anywhere near a universal franchise for men, and 100 years to achieve a franchise for women. The Parliament Act 1911 was seen as a relatively modest interim measure, yet we now see it as having huge importance.
	My record on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been mocked. The damnation of it by the Opposition was that it was not much more than a recapitulation of the non-statutory freedom of information code, although I did not agree with that. I think that the facts speak for themselves. The Human Rights Act 1998 might have been dismissed as piecemeal, but that is not what is said about it now. So far as the House of Lords is concerned, the Life Peerages Act 1958 could have been seen as piecemeal change-

Andrew MacKinlay: It was radical for its day.

Jack Straw: Indeed, and it was of major importance. The House of Lords Act 1999 has changed the composition of the other place, as well as making a major difference to its assertiveness. It has led it to being much more active in regard to change.

Robert Smith: Is the Secretary of State saying that, when the history books are written, clause 29 will be a shining highlight of the reform of Parliament?

Jack Straw: No, that was not the point that I was about to make.
	I was going to say that we should not make the best the enemy of the good. There seems to be no one who will defend the principle behind the election of hereditary peers. No one has done so today. Every argument has been a body swerve. Furthermore, we all believe that this will be a step, albeit a modest one, towards reform. I hope that everyone accepts that keeping the hereditary by-elections would not be a provocation for further reform but simply a blockage to the further reform to which all the parties are apparently committed. If we add all that together, we can see a strong case-which was made most eloquently by the hon. Member for Chichester-in favour of this change, and not much of a case against it. With that, I commend the clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 142.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30
	  
	Removal of members of house of lords etc

Andrew Tyrie: I beg to move amendment 92, page 15, line 32, at end insert
	'or a term peer within the meaning of section [Term peerages] of this Act'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 93, in schedule 4, page 52, line 36, after '(c.21)', insert
	'or a term peer under section [Term peerages]'.
	New clause 25- Life peerages -
	'(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958, is amended is as follows.
	(2) In section 1(1), after life, insert or such other period as may be specified in the letters patent.
	(3) In section 1(2), after conferred insert, or at the end of such other period as may have been specified in the letters patent.'.
	New clause 47- Term peerages -
	'(1) Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a term peerage having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.
	(2) A term peerage conferred under this section shall entitle the person on whom it is conferred-
	(a) to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and
	(b) subject to the relevant provisions of sections 30 to 33 above, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly.
	(3) Subject to subsection (4), a term peerage conferred under this section shall expire on the appointed day of poll for the third General Election after the day on which the term peerage was conferred.
	(4) Where a period of two years or less has elapsed from the day of conferment of a term peerage under this section to the day of poll for a General Election, that poll for a General Election shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculation under subsection (3) above of the time of expiry of that term peerage.'.

Andrew Tyrie: This is a relatively modest proposal that I worked up last year with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). New clause 47 and the consequential amendments will create a new class of peerage: term peers. As their name implies, term peers would be appointed for a fixed period rather than for life. The length of their term could and probably should be based on the approach already agreed by the major parties in their discussions on the make-up of a democratic Chamber-namely, that a predominantly elected second Chamber would comprise those serving a single long and non-renewable term of probably three Parliaments.
	The term length was a proposal that came out of the talks on the White Paper, but I recognise that, in the search for consensus, some further changes could be considered for the way in which term peers are appointed, which concerns the Liberal Democrats.
	I am proposing a modest step-certainly much more modest than the democratically elected second Chamber that I believe the British people deserve. If I thought that a democratic option could get through by consensus at this time, I would support it wholeheartedly, but I know that it will not. If we tried, the result would be a controversial Bill leading to a huge row. As I said, the plain fact is that the British people would find it extraordinary if the next Government, faced with the biggest economic mess since the 1930s, with the highest level of debt to GDP and the highest deficit since the second world war, decided to embark on a major constitutional upheaval. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, such a reform would absorb all the political energy of this place for at least a year. It would be irresponsible to engage in that with so many crucial economic questions facing us.
	However, all three major parties support democracy for the Lords. It is also true, although the figure is not often mentioned-my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did mention it-that 59 per cent. of Conservative MPs voted in 2007 for a largely or wholly elected second Chamber. There were even higher majorities in favour of democracy in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The point has been made that some of that voting might have been tactical; of course that is true, but some of the voting against democracy might have been tactical, too. That tells us absolutely nothing. The fact is that there is a clear majority in this place for democracy-there probably has been for a long time. It is regrettable that using their large majorities the Labour Government have not found an opportunity to take us further down the road.
	The problem is that any major Bill simply would not get past the Lords. I have no doubt that the Lords would oppose it. An early Bill to introduce democracy for the second Chamber would lead us straight into a constitutional crisis that the public would not understand, even though two thirds or three quarters of them support such a measure. They will rightly expect the Government to get on with the economic crisis in front of us.
	By contrast, the term peers measure will not cause a constitutional crisis. Its advantages would be relatively modest, but they are at least straightforward and I hope that colleagues will agree that they are worth having. First, they would take the House of Lords a step along the road of what Lord Jay, the Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, described as moving along the curve from honour to job. We need a Chamber of people who are committed to fulfilling a parliamentary role and to doing a job of work in the 21st century, not a status House or a legacy status House. There is an increasingly important job for the second Chamber to do and the term peers proposal will increase the chances of getting a higher degree of commitment and quality from the people who are put there to do the job.
	The second argument in favour of the proposal is that a major problem of the existing House would be addressed: the inevitable upward ratchet in the size of the House, given the way that it is presently constituted. The Government have been concerned about that problem, which occurs because an incoming Government inevitably want to make sure that their party is the largest single party in the Lords. The first thing that they will do under the existing rules-they have no choice-is to appoint a large number of life peers. Of course that life term is likely to be longer than the average life of the incoming Government and so those peers will still be there afterwards, leading to a ratchet effect each time and to an ever larger House. That becomes even more true as parties, as they have begun to do, seek to appoint somewhat younger lifers in order to get plenty of work out of them. That means that the peers will be there for even longer, even before we take into account increased life expectancy. The Lords will continue to grow.
	At 740 Members, the Lords is already the largest democratic Chamber in the world-if we exclude the Chinese national party congress, which is the only other chamber as big. Britain, as far as I know, is also the only bicameral democracy with a second Chamber larger than the main Chamber, which is quixotic. Ending the ratchet will be hugely valuable and term peers will take us a long way down the road to dealing with it.
	A third reason for supporting term peerages might seem paradoxical-particularly coming from me-but it is that the proposals would leave the existing life peerage wholly unaffected. That would minimise the risk of friction as term peerages are introduced. Should the parties decide so to do while in government, life peerages could be phased out or brought to an end, so the life peerage could be replaced by the term peerage, albeit quite slowly. That was how, gradually-not immediately-the hereditary peerage was phased out after life peerages were introduced in 1958.
	Given that, for various reasons, neither party has the stomach for fundamental reform of the Lords and that this is probably an inappropriate moment in the economic cycle to attempt such reform, we need to make the best of what we have-the existing House-and I hope that this modest proposal will achieve that. It will provide the maximum benefit with the minimum disruption and it will address the ratchet, so I hope that it will be supported by Members across the House.

Eleanor Laing: It was interesting to hear the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) for tabling this helpful and illuminating amendment. The Conservatives do not stand in the way of reasonable reform; we are very much in favour of it. No institution can remain static lest it stagnate, and it is important that reasonable steps to reform should be carefully taken. The vast majority of Members of this House are agreed that some sort of reform of the other House is necessary, and I am pleased that he has tabled these carefully considered amendments. The amendments and new clauses, taken together, may well provide a useful transitional measure while we await-it might take yet another 11 years-the Government's final proposals for the proper debate on and reform of the other House.
	I also agreed with what my hon. Friend said about Lord Jay, because it is right that in considering the appointments process in the House of Lords we should be moving along that curve from honour to job. Almost all of us are agreed that sitting in the upper House is a serious time-filling job, and one of responsibility. The upper House is a brilliantly effective reforming Chamber.

David Heath: It is a brilliantly ineffective reforming Chamber, but it is a brilliantly effective revising Chamber.

Eleanor Laing: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Lords is more of a revising Chamber than a reforming one-I am perhaps rather taken up with the idea of reform this evening. As I have said, I am all in favour of reform, but it should be carried out at the right pace and in a reasoned and logical way. As he rightly says, the Lords is an effective revising Chamber and the people of this country deserve to have as effective an upper Chamber as possible. Amendment 92 and the associated provisions might make the House of Lords more effective.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester was right to make the point about the size of the House of Lords, and his argument was persuasive. In redressing the balance of numbers among the parties in the other House, every new Prime Minister rightly has the power to appoint more peers and does so. As a result, the size of the Lords grows and grows. Thus, my hon. Friend was right in his analysis, in his comparison of our bicameral system with other such systems, and in his comparison of the number of people sitting in the Lords with that in any comparable Chamber in the democratic world. Rather than leaving the culling process-I hope that I may call it that-in order to limit the size and overall membership of the Lords to the grim reaper, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) put it, it would seem sensible for us to consider the possibility of introducing term peerages.
	As a matter of principle, the Conservatives are always in favour of strengthening Parliament and thereby strengthening democracy, and my hon. Friend's proposals could be a small step in strengthening democracy. They are no substitute for full, considered reform, but he is not pretending that they are. They are possibly a small step in the right direction and for that reason we will not be opposing them.

Tony Wright: The hon. Lady just said in closing that she would always support measures that strengthen democracy. The only trouble is that she has just voted, along with her colleagues, to maintain the hereditary peerage, so it is difficult to make out a coherent case.

Eleanor Laing: The two acts-strengthening democracy and voting as we have just done-are entirely correct and compatible.  [Interruption.] Contrary to what the Minister is saying, they are totally compatible. One of the main reasons why we voted as we just did was to show how much we appreciate the importance of an undertaking-a promise-made by the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a promise that should not be broken. That is about strengthening democracy; if the Government are allowed to break promises, democracy is not strengthened.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is very experienced, so she will be aware that her interventions should be brief. I think that she has made her point.

Tony Wright: I concede that in a different logical universe there is a consistency to what the hon. Lady is saying.
	I wish briefly to say something in support of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) for term limits. The only thing that gives me pause for caution is that he said in his previous interesting speech that everything we are saying today is irrelevant and that all this is an academic exercise, because it will not happen. Given that spirit, I am on his side, because I think that term limits would contribute something interesting to a package of reform measures, for the reasons that he has outlined. The biggest reason relates to the looming problem of the number of peers in the second Chamber. I have come to think that House of Lords reform will eventually be driven not by any great principles that we may hold, but by the need to attend to problems that we can no longer avoid addressing.
	Perhaps the biggest of those problems is the exponential growth in the number of Members of the Lords, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has described. It will make the place completely unmanageable and something will have to be done. The other measures in the Bill-the removal and retirement provisions-will help, but far more is required, and the move to term limits is sensible. All of us who subscribe to one or other version of House of Lords reform usually include term limits as part of our package. Even those in favour of a wholly democratic House usually have term limits as part of the package that they advance. That is entirely consistent, whichever direction one is coming from.
	We all have our own approach to House of Lords reform, and we all recite it at every possible opportunity. We are all wholly unmoved by what other people say when they describe their position; that is one great feature of this debate. We never change our positions, but simply repeat the positions that we have always held on the issue. I long for the day when someone says that they have just heard an argument that has persuaded them that we should move in the direction of election or appointment. That never happens. Year in and year out, there is simply a repetition of the positions that we hold, immune to argument, and I am as guilty of that as anyone else.
	With that proviso, let me just say, as someone who has always been in favour of a vigorously mixed House, that as long as one can defend the integrity of the ingredients of the mix, in reasonably democratic terms, term limits contribute something to that mix. Whatever we do, in a mature sense, about changing the composition of the House of Lords, or if we simply want to attend to the problems of today, term limits are a sensible ingredient in the package of measures that we are being offered in the Bill today.

Douglas Hogg: May I join the consensus? It is rather cheering that so far, there has been total consensus of view among hon. Members who have spoken. Indeed, I ventured to table new clause 25, which has the same purpose as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
	I, too, favour fixed-term peerages. I came to that position after balancing the arguments, because there is, in fact, an argument the other way. That argument, which in the end I did not accept, is that life peerages add to the independence of mind of the individuals who are made life peers, because they know that they will be in the Lords for ever, as it were, and have nothing to fear. When Members are independent in that sense, there is a more independent second Chamber, and I am strongly in favour of that.
	That is the argument on one side, but there are counterbalancing arguments that I accept and prefer, and my hon. Friend advanced them. There are four of them, and I can set them out very briefly. First, the second Chamber is too large. My hon. Friend spoke about the ratchet effect; he is wholly right, and the second Chamber will get still larger after this coming electing.
	Secondly-we have to deal with this point with a degree of caution-many noble Lords have, in fact, made their contribution, and have perhaps a limited contribution yet to make. That is because age has an impact on even the most able. That is, of course, recognised in judicial appointments. When my father was Lord Chancellor, judges could go on for ever, and often did. That became quite bad news for some litigants. The truth is that we recognise that through a retirement age. We do not have one in the other place, and that is not always a good thing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), made the important point that being in the other place is not just an honour; it is becoming a job-an important job that contributes very much to our constitution. If it is a job, it should be a job only for as long as a person is capable of doing it. In parenthesis, may I say that the other place would be sensible to look to salaries, rather than allowances? We all know the problems relating to allowances, so if it is a job, the other place would do well to consider a salary.
	I have one further point to make, and it relates to GOATs. The House will be conscious of what I mean by GOATs-Ministers in a Government of all the talents. A number of noble GOATs appointed to the other place found that their ministerial functions entranced them only for a few months, but thereafter, they were able to graze on the red Benches indefinitely. That is slightly distasteful to the public as a whole. That is not my principal argument in favour of fixed-term peerages, but it is a consideration that this Committee might want to take into account.
	I have two further points to make before I sit down and allow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to speak. First, the terms should be quite long. How long is a matter for debate, but they should last for some significant time-certainly more than two Parliaments-so that there is a degree of continuity in the other place. Also-this is a slightly different point-that would enhance the sense of independence that I think is so important.

Mark Harper: To pick up on my right hon. and learned Friend's point about GOATs, if someone is appointed to the other place specifically to be a Minister, does he think that the term of their peerage should be tied to the length of time for which they hold that office? Once they cease to be a Minister, should they not cease to be a Member of the other place?

Douglas Hogg: That is a very serious point that I have considered. Probably, one cannot be doctrinaire about it. I am inclined to answer that question in an ad hominem way. If I were the Prime Minister, I would be inclined to ask myself whether the GOAT in question was likely to make a continuing contribution after he or she ceased to be a Minister. If the answer to that was no, I would appoint the GOAT for the period for which the GOAT was likely to remain in the field, and not beyond. If, on the other hand, I thought that the GOAT was likely to make a continuing contribution to us all, I would give the GOAT a longer expectation of life.
	My final point is on reappointments. Assuming that we go down the road of fixed-term peerages, which I commend to the Committee, and assuming, too, that the period is quite long, we might well find, at the end of the stated period, that the person still has a real contribution to make. I hope that in those circumstances, the person could be reappointed for a further term, albeit a further term of significantly shorter duration than the original term. That does not fall within the scope of the amendments-I do not think that it has to-but it is a proviso that I would make to the Committee.

Fiona Mactaggart: At the risk of making this all fuzzy and warm, I, too, welcome the proposals set out by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I abhor appointment to a democratic Chamber. It is ludicrous and embarrassing, and we should be ashamed of our constitution, but his proposal is less ludicrous, embarrassing and shameful than the situation that we would otherwise be stuck with, and I therefore think it sensible in the circumstances.
	It is interesting to consider what we are debating. We are debating how to end people's term of office in the House of Lords and how they should be removed. We are not proposing giving the people of this country the power to remove them-a power that, thank goodness, the people of this country have over us. I look forward to the day, hopefully when I am still a Member of this House, when the people of this country get that power.
	It is worth looking at who else has the power to remove Members of this House. In clause 30, there is a power to remove Members of the House of Lords if they commit a particular kind of criminal offence or become bankrupt. There is a provision that if Members of this House are sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, they can be removed.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Lady to recall that that subject would come under a clause 30 stand part debate, rather than this debate on amendment 92.

Fiona Mactaggart: I stand corrected. I hope that this is a matter we can address very quickly, and I shall stop talking about this very sensible amendment.

David Heath: I forbore to stand to catch your eye earlier, Mrs. Heal, because I wanted to listen to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) discuss their amendments and new clauses.
	I shall maintain the spirit of consensus that has predominated in this debate, but not because I believe for one moment in the concept of appointed term peers or non-term peers. I am wholly against that concept. As most hon. Members know, I have always argued in favour of an elected second Chamber, but the amendment has some merits in the context-and only in the context-of an unreformed House and how we might limit some of the more deleterious aspects of its form and function at the moment. One thing that I have noticed about those who are elevated to another place is that they tend very quickly to believe that the process by which they were elevated must be extremely wise and sensible given the outcome, which is that they are now a Member of that House. The longer they stay in the House, the more they are convinced of that fact and the less likely they are to change.
	The merit of what the hon. Member for Chichester has proposed is that it provides an envelope for that patronage to end. That must be right. It limits, at least to a certain extent, the effect of prime ministerial patronage. I also think that it would have the function of focusing those who were in that House for a limited period on the job that they were there to do. A great number of life peers, particularly those who have been recently created, seem to have only the haziest view of their function as members of a legislature, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely attend. When they do attend, it is usually on a matter that directly affects them rather than because they have any view of their function in a working democracy. The fact is that the work of the other House is carried out by a very limited number of people. All credit to those who shoulder the burden-they do a terrific job-but the fact is that many Members of the other House are rarely seen and rarely contribute.

Douglas Hogg: The truth is that the less the House of Commons scrutinises legislation, the greater the burden on their lordships in their purpose of scrutiny.

David Heath: Precisely so. It irritates me enormously when someone has the perks and honours associated with membership of the other House but does not do the work involved. It is sad to say that a lot of them do that. We might feel that some Members of this House, on occasions, contribute relatively little, but at least they occasionally turn up to vote. Some in the other place do not even find that that is a necessary part of their function.
	As I said, I think that term limits might focus the view of those who receive such preferment on the role that they are expected to perform. My only quibble, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, is the time period for which they might be expected to serve. He mentioned three Parliaments. I would be happy with that if we had fixed-term Parliaments, but we do not. Having a specific time might be better than expressing it in terms of Parliaments, because there would not be a direct relationship between the peer's activities in the other House and elections to this House. However, I am a strong advocate of a fixed-term Parliament in any case, which would solve that difficulty.
	I have to say that I do not agree with the arguments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in favour of reappointment. There is a considerable benefit in not having reappointments, largely for the reason he enlisted in favour of some of the things that he said-that is, independence. When people know that there is nothing to be gained by reacting positively to the prospect of future advancement or patronage, they have an independence of mind that might not be quite as strong in other circumstances. If we have a fixed term without the possibility of reappointment, that frees anybody who is in that position from the sometimes adverse attentions of the Whips or party colleagues. They will clearly be free to speak their own minds.
	An interesting and important point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of his comments and picked up on by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) is the position of Ministers. I take a view, which is not shared by everybody, that we should not have Ministers appointed from the House of Lords anyway. Ministers should come from this place and should go along to the House of Lords to argue their case for particular legislation and we should remove yet another tier of patronage. However, that is not the position at the moment.

Douglas Hogg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. May I put this slightly different question to him? Given where we now are, would he support Ministers in the other place being able to come to this place to respond to questions and perhaps to advance arguments in debate?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid that that question, interesting as it might be, is not relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.

David Heath: I accept your guidance, Mrs. Heal.
	On term limits for Ministers appointed as Ministers to the other place, I think that there is a very strong argument-we dealt with this in our cross-party discussions on the future of the House of Lords-that, if someone is appointed as a Minister, the term should be for the duration of their role in the Administration. There is no argument for its coming automatically with a permanent seat or even a 15-year seat or whatever in the House of Lords. It should be an ad hoc position, if it is our view that Ministers should continue to be appointed from that House. Entry to the House should be for the duration of the time for which that person is a Minister.
	If there is then an argument that the person involved has performed distinguished service, perhaps in the role of Secretary of State, and merits a term peerage, so be it. Their appointment should not be a disqualification from a term peerage, but it should not automatically be assumed that because someone has been an Under-Secretary for a few weeks that person merits a permanent place in the revising Chamber of our legislature. That seems to me to be an unanswerable argument.
	I would have preferred it if this amendment had included a section on Ministers, but I appreciate the fact that we are talking about a principle. It is a principle on which we will divide, if the hon. Member for Chichester presses his amendment to a Division. I shall recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the amendment should be supported. I shall not do so, however, because I think that it is a perfect amendment or that a reformed House of Lords with term peers in it would be a reformed House of Lords. It would be just slightly better than what we have at the moment and I suppose that any advance is better than none.

Mark Field: I want briefly to contribute to the debate. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I, too, want to see a full democratisation of the House of Lords. In many ways, the term peerages that we are debating will tend to recognise the perpetuation of the life peerages that I would like to see done away with.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) alluded to what would probably happen if elected term peerages replaced life peerages. I think that that would be a sensible and desirable way to go forward, but I agree that there are some deep concerns about the appointment of Ministers specifically from outside the political sphere.
	In many ways, what happened with Lord Carter, Lord Jones of Birmingham and others has rather discredited what was a very good initiative on the part of the Prime Minister of the time. I think that it is desirable to have certain ministerial talent coming into Parliament, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was right to say that the difficulty with those two individuals and the others was that they were enamoured of Parliament and politics for only a matter of months. After that, they ended up with the life peerages that were bestowed on them, which cannot be taken away. That would be less undesirable if there were evidence that they wanted to play a part in matters political even in their post-ministerial lives, but there is little evidence of that.
	The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) is in many ways a sensible interim development. Some trimming of the notion that a peerage is for life would be very desirable but, in the absence of the radical reform that I would prefer, I suspect that over the years and decades ahead we will move towards all peerages being term peerages and not life peerages. To an extent, that would get around some of the concerns about Ministers expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper).
	The whole thing is a bit of mess, to put it mildly. This has been a worthwhile debate although, for the reasons set out just now and earlier this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, it is likely to be academic, as it is unlikely that the amendment will end up on the statute book.

Douglas Hogg: Would my hon. Friend encourage our Front-Bench team to make it plain to Government Front Benchers in the wash-up session that we would support the concept of life peerages at the end of this Parliament, as part of a compromise Bill?

Mark Field: Yes, I would join my right hon. and learned Friend in trying to make that plain.
	I hope that the Minister has some food for thought for his response to this brief debate but, assuming that the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in supporting it.

Michael Wills: I say this with genuine regret, but I am afraid that I am going to break the consensus and tell the Committee that, unfortunately, the Government cannot support the amendment.
	My regret is genuine, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has done the Committee a real service. My thanks go as well to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), whose name also appears on some of the proposals.
	The amendments are serious, imaginative and constructive, and they deal with an issue of real importance in our national life. I am particularly sorry that we cannot support them, as I think that there is real consensus across the Committee-and I include myself in that-about the three main objectives and premises that I have discerned to be driving the proposals.
	First, everyone who has spoken is, like me, in favour of comprehensive reform of the House of Lords on a democratic basis. I think that we can take it for granted that we all want a wholly elected House of Lords
	Secondly, I see all the merits for term limits, for all the reasons that have been set out. I shall not rehearse them, but I would like to sign up to all the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in favour of term limits.
	Finally, I think that everyone can agree that the House of Lords is too large and is growing even larger, for all the reasons that have been advanced so cogently. That is regrettable, and the trend needs to be reversed. On all those grounds, I think that the Committee is in agreement.
	However, the problem with the amendments is that they are based on a fundamental premise with which the Government must disagree. That premise is that the comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not going to happen in the near future. I understand why people may say that, as the process has been going on for 100 years or more. I also understand that there is a certain cynicism or weariness about the matter, so I completely understand the motivation behind the amendments, but we have to look at the arguments a little more closely.
	The Member for Chichester advanced two main reasons for why he thinks that reform of the House of Lords remains a distant prospect. The first was that the next Parliament, whoever forms the Government, will be wholly preoccupied with dealing with the current crisis in the economy. As a result, he said, radical constitutional change will simply not be an option.
	I fundamentally disagree with that proposition. We can all accept that there are real pressing challenges in the economy that need to be dealt with, but it is manifestly not true that the House will be able to concentrate only on that one thing. It was not true at the height of the second world war: the nation faced one of the biggest challenges to its existence that it has ever faced, but wholesale programmes of economic and social reform were driven through. The foundations of the national health service were put in place, as were radical reforms of the educational system, and so on. Of course this House, and Parliament as a whole, can do more than one thing at a time.

Mark Field: The Minister will accept that the Butler Education Act of 1944 and the Beveridge reforms were based on consensus in the House of Commons that spread throughout the political sphere. The issues were debated at some length, it is true, but broadly speaking there was consensus. The difference now is that reform of the House of Lords would be a matter of great contention, with the result that the Government would have at least one eye off the ball when it came to the economic crisis.

Michael Wills: If the hon. Gentleman looks at his history books, I think that he will find that there was not a consensus about the NHS-very far from it. The Conservative party did not support it at the time, but I shall not take that historical analysis any further.
	The second argument put forward by the hon. Member for Chichester for his amendments was that there would be a constitutional crisis-I think that that was the term that he used-if reform were to be driven through in short order. I understand the argument, and accept that Members in the other place are very sceptical about the idea and reluctant to envisage the sort of radical reform that every hon. Member who has spoken here tonight wants. The consensus in the House of Commons on the matter is broad, with almost everyone supporting reform, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that we would not see the sort of crisis that he predicts if every major political party's manifesto contained a commitment to drive through radical reform of the House of Lords in the next Parliament.
	If the manifesto commitments were expressed in those terms, I think that the other place would recognise that the will of the people had spoken. Sadly, we have not heard quite such a definite pledge from the Conservative party here this evening, but there is still hope.
	I do not think that full reform of the House of the Lords is, by any measure, inevitably a distant prospect. The House of Lords could be reformed, as long as the proper political will existed. The Government are willing to commit to that prospect, but the premise for the reform proposed in the amendment is misplaced. The amendment can have the merits advanced for it today only if a change to a wholly elected Chamber is not going to happen imminently.
	Such a change would be phased in over time, as we discussed at great length previously, but signing up to these amendments would send the signal that we had given up all hope of radical reform of the House of Lords. I am simply not prepared to do that.
	I want to offer some comfort the hon. Member for Chichester, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and all those who have spoken in the debate today. The Government will publish draft clauses for that wholesale reform very shortly, within a matter of weeks. I hope that we can focus the debate on the content of those clauses, which we are publishing in draft because we genuinely want contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House on how best to achieve the wholesale reform that everyone has signed up to today.

Eleanor Laing: We have known for a very long time that this part of the Bill would be debated in the Chamber today, so why have the Government not already brought forward the draft Bill to which the Minister just referred? They could have put it before us this evening, so that we could have debated this matter knowing what they intend.

Michael Wills: I think that the hon. Lady is being slightly disingenuous. The Government's broad intention has been clear for a very long time. We are talking about bringing forward specific clauses so that the details of our intentions can be scrutinised and discussed.
	That is where I hope the energy of the House will be directed. The quality of today's debate shows that Members of the House have a considerable contribution to make to achieving that radical reform-not temporising or providing transitional measures. That is where I hope we can focus the debate.
	I shall not dwell on them, but there are technical problems with the proposal and unanswered questions such as who would decide whether a person should be granted a term peerage or a life peerage, against what criteria the decision should be made and what would happen at the end of a fixed term, although we had a little discussion about reappointment. All those technical problems could be fixed if there were broad agreement that this is the right way forward because reform of the House of Lords is so distant. I do not agree with that.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister understand that what he is saying is slightly different in its general tone from the position adopted by the Secretary of State? The Minister is saying that if we agreed to the amendment, which is intrinsically good, we would send a signal that serious future reform was not intended, but during the previous debate the Secretary of State asked us to accept reforms that, adopting the Minister's argument, send exactly the same signal. Why were we asked to support clause 29 when we are being asked not to support the amendment?

Michael Wills: I completely understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but he is an extremely distinguished lawyer and he knows that the devil is always in the detail. The whole point about clause 29 is that we have a system that is risible, to use the Secretary of State's term. We cannot expect the dignity of the House not to be impaired when we have a system that involves more candidates than electors. I do not want to revisit the previous debate, but that was clearly not envisaged. The two situations are categorically different, and we cannot simply apply the badge, The best is the enemy of the good. That simply does not fly, although I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to make that clear.
	I think we all share the same objectives, broadly; it is a question of how we get there. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Chichester will consider withdrawing his amendment. I understand why he has made his proposals, but will he devote his considerable intellectual energies and creativity to getting the wholesale reform of the House of Lords that we all want to see when we introduce the draft measures on that very shortly?

Andrew Tyrie: I am grateful for the Minister's generous words at the end of his speech, but less grateful for the unfortunate fact that, uniquely among those who have spoken, he has decided to oppose the measure-indeed, to lead the Government's opposition to it.
	I am fortified when I receive support from such a varied crew from around the House: the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright); the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart); my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg); and my Front Benchers and so on. Their support-not to mention that of the whole of the Liberal party, which I think is also aboard-suggests to me that there might be something in the proposal.
	The Minister put two arguments against the measure. First, he said that we should rush ahead with radical reform even though the economy is in crisis, adding that that would be perfectly doable based on the historical precedent of radical reforms that took place during the second world war, although he did not mention the fact that we had a coalition Government in the Commons and Lords' support for them. He then alluded to controversies about the NHS as a further example, without realising that the NHS was created well after the war under the Attlee-led Labour Government. I feel that he needs to look at the history books, which he invited us to look at.
	The Minister had another main objection. He seemed to say that now we have this solid proposal ready on the blocks, we should act on it and that nothing could be an obstacle to it-we could act within weeks. The Labour party has been in power for 13 years with huge majorities, so why on earth did it not find an earlier opportunity to push reform through? I find that quite astonishing.

Michael Wills: First, I said that the foundations of the NHS were laid during the second world war. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is true. The fact that the NHS was delivered after the war is another matter. Secondly, and more importantly, he knows very well-he heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain it this afternoon-that we have tried for the past 12 years to build a consensus for reform. We have made considerable progress in doing so, and I hope he will recognise that at least.

Andrew Tyrie: We have made some progress. Eventually, perhaps, we will be able to move further in that direction and measures might be introduced when the country is more prepared to allow its focus to be taken away from the issues that matter most to the vast majority of households. I am sure they will be focused on economic issues for the foreseeable future.
	In the meantime, I am surprised and disappointed that the Government have not realised that the measure would address the effect of the ratchet-the fact that the House of Lords is getting ever larger. It had been heard in Government circles that that problem was being increasingly discussed.
	Given that there is such widespread, cross-party support for the measure, except among those on the Treasury Bench, I have decided to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 249.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Wills: Clause 30 provides that a person who is an accepted hereditary peer or life peer will be removed from the House of Lords if he or she meets the conditions in part 1 of schedule 4, which deals with disqualification for a serious criminal offence or bankruptcy, or is expelled by a resolution of the House under clause 31, or resigns from the House under clause 32.

Mark Harper: I notice, having looked at the reasons for removing someone from the House of Lords, that there is nothing about whether the Member of the House of Lords has either the physical or mental capacity. There is a provision affecting Members of this House whereby they can be removed under section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but the recent Speaker's Conference report suggested that the provision be removed. Does the Minister have anything to say about how that may affect Members of the other place?

Michael Wills: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised earlier. I should like to take this opportunity to make it clear that there is no justification, in my view, for a distinction between mental and physical illness in that respect-none. Therefore, the current situation is clearly untenable. Nevertheless, particular issues must be discussed in terms of the representation of constituents. If a Member is incapacitated for whatever reason, we have to look at how their constituents are best represented. Our view, like that of the Speaker's Conference, is that the issue is best discussed by a Select Committee, and we hope that that will happen without delay. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister is right that I raised that issue in an out-of-order way earlier in today's proceedings. However, he over-complicates the matter. I was, for example, unable to represent my constituents for many months when I was away, because I had cancer.

Michael Lord: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, and perhaps I should have intervened on the Minister earlier, but this debate is specifically about the House of Lords, not about the House of Commons. The remarks of both the hon. Lady and the Minister must be restricted to that.

Fiona Mactaggart: Can I commend the fact that, in this clause, there is no possibility for removing people because of any kind of ill health; and can I suggest to the Minister that he applies the same measure to this House?

Michael Wills: I have noted those comments, and I am sure that the Committee has noted this exchange. If I may, I shall just carry on and discuss the terms of clause 30.
	The Member's removal in the circumstances described is affected by the loss of entitlement to receive the writ of summons, and by the provision that any writ of summons that has already been issued has no further affect. As the writ contains the command to appear to attend Parliament, the peer thereby loses the right to take up their seat. The Committee will be aware that the events of last year focused public attention on the conduct of some Members of the House of Lords, who were accused in the press of being prepared to accept money in exchange for influencing legislation. That serious accusation evoked widespread public disquiet. At that time the Government began to look at the legislation that we might introduce to strengthen the mechanisms, which were widely considered to be inadequate, for disciplining Members in the House of Lords. Their weakness was acknowledged by all parties.
	More recently, the expenses controversy in this House has shaken the reputation of Parliament, and there is an even more pressing need now to restore the public's confidence in its democratic institutions and ensure that there are arrangements to deal adequately with accountability and to discipline of Members of Parliament. To ensure the highest standards of behaviour in the House of Lords, robust sanctions must be in place and peers should no longer be immune from being removed on account of the fact that there is nothing short of an Act of Parliament that can take away their membership of that Chamber.
	The provisions allowing for removal for reasons of discipline must be flexible to conform to the severity of the offence. For the worst cases of misconduct, removal should be automatic, but those that are less serious demand the exercise of discretion, so that a decision may be made on whether the Member should either be expelled from the House or face a lesser sanction. Clause 31 provides a power for the House to pass a resolution against Members to impose less serious sanctions on them.
	On the details of the provisions on removal by automatic disqualification, the two conditions that engage that provision relate to the severest offences, whereby it might be considered beyond dispute that a peer's continued membership of the House is untenable. The first condition, in paragraph (2) of schedule 4, is conviction of an offence where the peer is sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment, reflecting the current position in the House of Commons. The condition ensures that the disqualification provision will apply if the Member is unlawfully at large and, therefore, evading justice. The condition is also met even when the offence or the conviction and offence occurs outside the United Kingdom, ensuring that a person may not avoid removal from the Lords by virtue of any event necessary to fulfil the condition having occurred outside the United Kingdom, when it would have led to their disqualification had it occurred in the United Kingdom.
	It may be argued that offences that attract a sentence outside the UK could be dealt with under foreign jurisdictions more harshly than in the United Kingdom courts. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, offences that would not be punishable at all under UK law may attract a severe sentence, so there is provision in paragraph (9) of schedule 4 for the House of Lords to pass a resolution to reverse the automatic disqualification. Paragraph (7)(1) of schedule 4 makes provision for a peer to make a claim for the reversal of removal, and to reinstate a right of membership following disqualification on the grounds of conviction and sentence for a serious criminal offence, if a conviction is overturned or quashed, if it is determined that a peer should not have been subject to sentence, or if the sentence is changed in any way such that the conditions that engaged the removal provisions are no longer met. Clearly, it would be unjust not to include provisions to allow recognition and reflection of a court's determinations when they change the parameters in which the individual was judged to have met the conditions for disqualification.
	The second condition for which the removal power is engaged as a result of automatic disqualification is if either a bankruptcy restriction order or undertaking, or a debt relief order or undertaking, come into force against a peer as set out in paragraph (2) of schedule 4. Bankruptcy per se is not a condition for disqualification; however, the provisions set out in the schedule recognise court decisions that have judged the peer culpable in relation to the bankruptcy, and they therefore provide that their membership should cease. By analogy to the provisions on disqualification for conviction and sentence for serious convictions, there is provision for the peer to make a claim for reversal of disqualification when any orders or undertakings in force against them are annulled. Claims for reversal of removal when the disqualification resulted from an engagement of the first and second conditions are considered by the Lord Chancellor under the procedure in paragraphs (3) to (5) of schedule 4.
	I now turn to the power for removal of membership on grounds of an expulsion resolution. The power for the House of Lords to pass an expulsion resolution, when the peer does not meet the conditions for automatic disqualification, is provided in clause 31. It will be discussed in more detail when we debate that clause. However, the significant characteristic of the expulsion resolution is that, by definition, it is not automatic; it requires consideration of the facts of the case and a vote of the House. Therefore, the House may exercise it on a discretionary basis. That might happen if a Member has been convicted and sentenced for a relatively serious criminal offence but-

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. For clarification, is the Minister now starting to deal with clause 31, about expulsion and suspension of Members of the House of Lords? We are discussing clause 30 stand part. He has already gone on to schedule 4, which is intimately linked with clause 30, so that obviously makes sense. Is he deliberately going on to clause 31, or is he going to deal with clause 30 and schedule 4 first of all?

Michael Wills: Thank you very much, Sir Michael. I understand; I was trying to pre-empt any questions that might arise out of those provisions, but I was not seeking to stray, and I am sorry if I did so inadvertently.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I intimated to Mrs. Heal that I would like to speak on a clause 31 stand part debate, but if it is convenient to the Minister to group schedule 4, clause 30 and clause 31 together, I, for one, would not seek to stand in his way. We could just have the one debate, if that were acceptable to you, Sir Michael.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Is the House agreeable that we should deal with clause 30, which we are debating, along with schedule 4 and clause 31, and then vote on them or otherwise? Does the hon. Lady agree?

Eleanor Laing: We are happy with that, Sir Michael.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Then the Minister may carry on in that vein.

Michael Wills: Thank you, Sir Michael. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that suggestion, which would very much aid the dispatch of business. I will, if I may, carry straight on and speak to clause 31 and the schedule.
	The significant characteristic of the expulsion resolution is that, by definition, it is not automatic: it requires the exercise of discretion by the House. This may take place, for example, if a Member has been convicted of and sentenced for a relatively serious criminal offence but one that did not attract a sentence of 12 months or more and therefore did not meet the condition for automatic disqualification-for example, a case of fraud where the sentence handed out is less than 12 months but the nature of the misconduct may be construed as incompatible with the unique position of trust that is occupied by Members of the House. The mechanism to effect the loss of a membership is identical to that for automatic disqualification; in other words, it is the loss of the entitlement to the writ of summons and a provision that any writ of summons that had already been issued is ineffective.
	Clause 30 provides the power of removal for Members who wish to relinquish their membership by exercising the right provided under clause 32. The mechanism for removal is the same as the discipline provisions, and this accounts for all the removal powers being grouped in this clause. There should be no assumption-I want to make this absolutely clear-that the removal provision for resignation exists primarily to allow Members who have committed misconduct to do the honourable thing, as it were. There are many perfectly honourable reasons for Members wishing to resign-

David Heath: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Can I be clear about this? We may have agreed to deal with clauses 30 and 31 and schedule 4 in the same debate, but I do not think we agreed to deal with clause 32, and it seems as though the Minister might be straying into a discussion of clause 32.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that there are limits as to how much we can reorganise the agreed programme. The hon. Gentleman is correct. We are dealing, at most, with clause 31, and it would be a good idea if we did not, at this point, stray into clause 32, as that deals with resignation from the House of Lords, which is a separate matter.

Michael Wills: Thank you, Sir Michael. I was trying to deal with the processes in clause 30 and explain why they are all included there together, rather than getting on to the substance of clause 32. These things are grouped together and they are complex, so I am trying to stick to the point but also trying to add clarity to the argument. The fact that these provisions are grouped together in the same place in clause 30 should not imply, when we get on to the substantive discussion of clause 32, that there is necessarily anything dishonourable about Members seeking to take advantage of its provisions.
	The provisions in the clause are necessary to effect a Member's removal from the House, but the reasons for that Member's departure may be triggered by the conditions for disqualification under schedule 4 being met, by a decision to expel the Member under clause 31, or by their resignation under clause 32. On that basis, I hope that the clause can be considered to stand part of the Bill.
	I wonder whether I should continue to speak to clause 31 and then to the schedule, or perhaps allow any contributions on this particular provision.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that given the path that we have chosen to follow, it would be a good idea if the Minister dealt with all the provisions together; then anybody who wants to contribute can speak to some or all of them, and we will talk about Divisions a little later on.

Michael Wills: Okay, then, I shall do exactly that.
	I now turn to clause 31. This provides a power for the House of Lords to make Standing Orders to allow it to pass a resolution to expel a peer or to suspend a peer for any length of time specified in the resolution. This resolution may be passed when the House considers that the conduct of the Member has damaged the reputation of the House. The intention is to replicate, as far as possible, the sanctions of suspension and expulsion that already exist in the House of Commons and that the House of Commons has at its disposal to deal with misconduct by MPs. As in this House, the intention is to uphold the fundamental principle of parliamentary privilege, which permits each House to regulate its own affairs. In 1999, the Joint Committee on Privileges said:
	As far as members are concerned, there can be no doubt that each House should remain responsible for disciplining its own members. The Joint Committee has taken this as axiomatic. It is inconceivable that power to suspend or expel a member of either House should be exercisable by the courts or some other outside body.
	In keeping with that principle, the criteria for exercise of the power is non-prescriptive. It requires that the House must find that the Member's conduct brings the House into disrepute. Subsection (1) provides the House of Lords with the power to make in Standing Orders such provisions as are necessary for it to exercise a power to suspend or expel Members by resolution. The precise framework within which the power will be exercised is therefore delegated to the House of Lords. This delegated power will allow the House to elaborate the principal basis for any sanctions as well as the details of the procedural mechanism by which any sanction will be applied.

Douglas Hogg: There is something troubling me-it is a small point. I can see that if a Member of the other place behaves badly in one way or another, then that Member brings himself or herself into disrepute, but I am not absolutely clear that the bad behaviour of an individual Member can be said to bring the House into disrepute, which seems to be a slightly different concept. When the Minister further considers the drafting, perhaps he should focus on the nature of the conduct of the individual Member as it bears on that person's reputation rather than on the reputation of the House.

Michael Wills: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. He makes an important point, but I think that I have already dealt with it. In our view, some offences axiomatically bring the House into disrepute and therefore merit automatic disqualification-that is why those offences are so categorised-while other offences are subject to the opinion of the House. It is not for us to prescribe that, and that is why we have allowed this discretionary power. It is fundamental to the principles of parliamentary privilege that the other place should make its own decisions on such issues. He is right that there will be some instances of behaviour that bring the Member personally into disrepute but do not, in any common-sense way, affect the reputation of the House at all; there will be other kinds that do both. However, that is a matter for the other place to judge, and that is why we are allowing for this discretionary power precisely to deal with the sort of issue that he has raised. I will reflect on it further, and I am sure that there will be further discussion of it in the other place, if nowhere else.
	In the House of Commons, matters concerning conduct and discipline are dealt with in Standing Orders and in the Commons code of conduct. The provisions in the clause would allow the House of Lords to establish a similar regime, dealing with some aspects in the Standing Orders and others in the code of conduct along the lines of the existing code. Subsection (3) extends the existing power of suspension currently available to the House by removing the existing restriction that a period of suspension may not be longer than the remainder of the current Parliament. Instead, the duration of the suspension may be for any period specified in the resolution; again, that is in keeping with the principles of proportionality that we are trying to put forward.
	The mechanism for the expulsion of a Member is set out in subsection (2). The House passes an expulsion resolution that states that the Member loses his or her right to receive a writ of summons. The resolution is given effect by the removal power at clause 30. A power is also provided at subsection (2) that any writ of summons already issued prior to an expulsion resolution shall have no further effect. It is important to stress that that does not mean that the power to expel and suspend is retrospective, but that it cannot be trumped by a writ that has already been issued.
	Subsection (4) of clause 31 provides the mechanism for suspending the Member. The House issues a resolution that states that in the House's opinion the House is in disrepute because of the conduct of that person. I hope that reassures the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The resolution must also state that that conduct warrants suspension of his or her entitlement to a writ of summons, and that accordingly the Member's entitlement should be suspended. That will mean that the Member loses his or her right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and accordingly is not a Member of the House of Lords for the period of the suspension.
	Subsections (5) and (6) together provide that the powers of suspension and expulsion should be exercisable only in relation to conduct that occurs after the date of the making of the Standing Order, which must occur after the date when the clause comes into force. That will mean that the suspension and expulsion provisions are exercisable only prospectively and therefore do not apply to conduct that brings the House of Lords into disrepute if it occurs before the clause comes into force.
	We are aware that there may be some expectation that the peers whose conduct last January led to the calls for tougher provisions should be subject to the powers in clause 31. However, it is important that we maintain the principle of retrospectivity. The conduct of those peers has already been dealt with by the other place following the conclusion of investigations into the allegations against them. Two of the peers were suspended for the remainder of the parliamentary Session. We believe that it is fair and just that Members whose conduct has been or could have been dealt with under rules previously available to the House of Lords should not be punished a second time.
	Without clause 31, the House of Lords is unable to expel one of its Members, regardless of any crime or misconduct that they may have committed. I am sure that you will agree, Sir Michael, that that is an invidious and untenable situation, and that the clause is necessary. I therefore ask that it stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I have two quick questions for the Minister. One is about offences that are committed outside the UK and for which sentences are given and served outside the UK. I understand why the relevant provision is in the Bill and do not argue with it, and I note the capacity in schedule 4 for a resolution to be passed effectively to annul the results of a finding of guilt in a foreign jurisdiction. However, I hope that the Minister will consider whether there should be some notion of dual criminality, so that to be covered, the action must be an offence in the UK as well as in the other jurisdiction. It seems surprising that a person found guilty of some supposed offence in another jurisdiction that is not an offence in the UK could come back here to find that their membership of the House of Lords had been forfeited as a result, and that they had to wait for a resolution of the House to have their position vindicated or otherwise. That is a slightly long-winded way of dealing with something that ought to be clear-cut.
	My other question-I hope that the Minister is listening, despite his conversation with you, Sir Michael. It is rather pointless my standing up and making comments on clause stand part if the Minister is not listening to what I am saying. I hope that he is.

Peter Bottomley: I am not sure that it was totally clear what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Could he possibly say it again quite briefly for the Minister?

David Heath: I hoped that I had made myself clear, but just in case the Minister did not get the full purport of what I was saying, it was about the question of dual criminality. I was asking whether a so-called offence committed outside the UK that is not an offence here should be dealt with by automatic forfeiture of membership of the House of Lords and then have to be overturned by a resolution, or whether the Bill should simply state that to qualify, it must be an offence both in the UK and in the foreign jurisdiction. That is what we often state in legislation dealing with overseas jurisdictions.
	The second question that I wish to put to the Minister is about clause 31(8), which I do not believe he mentioned specifically. It states:
	An expulsion resolution or a suspension resolution may contain other provision in addition to that mentioned in the subsections above.
	What is that other provision that the Minister envisages? If Standing Orders of the other place are to be made on the basis of the Bill, the Lords will want to know what that might entail. I would have thought that a simple suspension or expulsion resolution would be appropriate, and that it would not be appropriate to add other things that Members of another place might think appropriate punishments for whatever the perceived crime might be. From my experience of another place, they might be remarkably inventive in finding appropriate punishments to add to the charge list in a resolution. Will the Minister therefore explain what that subsection means?

Douglas Hogg: I shall speak to clause 31. I have two points to make about it, and I am looking at the Minister and hoping that he will be able to concentrate on the points that I make. I mean no discourtesy in saying that, because I know that he was taking advice earlier, as I often had to do when I was in his position.
	The expulsion and suspension resolutions are set out in clause 31(2)(a) and (3)(a) respectively. There are two elements involved in them: first, that the peer in question must have acted in a disreputable manner, and secondly and differently, that the disreputable conduct of that person must have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. Both elements have to be satisfied before a resolution can be made.
	One need only examine that proposition to see that it may be expressed somewhat unsatisfactorily. I can well contemplate circumstances in which a Member of the other House has behaved in a disreputable way, but that conduct is very much personal to him or herself and cannot sensibly be said to bring the House into disrepute. They are separate things. They may be linked, and disreputable conduct may bring the House into disrepute, but it does not necessarily do so. Under the current phraseology, unless both elements are satisfied, the suspension or expulsion resolution cannot be made. I wonder whether that is right, and I therefore suggest that the Minister look again at the phraseology that defines the criteria giving rise to the resolution. I suggest that he question whether the two things should be disjoined so that disreputable conduct that does not bring the House into disrepute would be grounds for a suspension or expulsion. There can be a legitimate debate about that, but that the issue arises seems clear, and it should be addressed.
	Secondly and rather differently, I should like to say something about the circumstances in which the resolution can be made. The Minister will know that I tabled an amendment-amendment 45-which for good reason was not selected for debate. Under that proposal, one third of those qualified to vote would be required to vote in favour of a resolution before it could become effective; in other words, there would be a weighted vote. As I understand it, the amendment was not selected because that is a matter for the Standing Orders of the other place, and it would be improper for the Committee so to regulate, which I am happy to accept.
	However, the point that troubles me is this: we must consider concepts of natural justice, and there is a possibility that a party with a majority in the other place, or in this place for that matter, could act in an arbitrary manner. After all, a suspension or expulsion resolution would bear very heavily on the reputation of the individual concerned-moreover, it might affect that person's livelihood in a fairly dramatic fashion-and it is therefore right that that power should have some constraints. It is worth reminding ourselves that, for example, criminal cases, generally speaking, require a unanimous verdict; even when they do not, they require the verdict of 10 jurors.
	The resolution that we are contemplating would be made simply on a bare majority, but is that in itself right? I am far from certain that it is, which gives rise to the question whether the other place should, if it comes to consider the way in which it operates, consider questions of natural justice and set out in Standing Orders either the degree of notice that should be given to the House, so that the Government or whoever cannot act arbitrarily, or that there should be a weighted vote, so that a very substantial number of those entitled to vote do so. Otherwise, we are exposing people to the risk of arbitrary action that bears very heavily upon them.

Eleanor Laing: The Conservatives are very much in favour of the Government's proposals in clauses 30 and 31, and schedule 4, because democracy depends on accountability, which in turn requires sanctions. It is astounding that it is only at this stage in the development of our democracy that such sanctions are being introduced. I cannot blame the current Government for that, because that development has been going on for centuries, but I am pleased that we have such measures before us now. They are right not just because of the examples that we have seen in recent months, but because, as a matter of principle, it is right that such sanctions are in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, has made it clear on many occasions in recent months that he thoroughly supports the Government's proposals. He has also made it clear that if they did not take action, any future Conservative Government would do so. I am therefore pleased that they are taking action today.
	I share the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). For the sake of brevity, I shall not repeat what they said-the Minister is already preparing to answer the questions they put to him. I was concerned about convictions outwith the United Kingdom, but I am reasonably satisfied that schedule 4(9) takes those matters into consideration. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has ensured that the Minister is considering the matter and I am sure that the latter will give us a clear answer in a few minutes.
	Sufficient safeguards should be in place so that all the circumstances surrounding whatever accusations a Member of the House of Lords faces are considered. Evidence should be taken and the matter should be fully examined by the House. Otherwise, we will not have an open, fair and just system. I remind the Minister-although I am sure he needs no reminding-and the Committee that in circumstances such as those we are discussing, justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. I hope that the question of justice being seen to be done also encompasses the concerns expressed during this short debate, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to address them.
	I entirely agree with the Minister on retrospectivity; it is vital that we do not introduce rules that are retrospective and therefore unfair. I am sure that the Minister is about to address the few concerns that have been expressed. I hope that he will convince the Committee that the provisions should be added to the Bill and we will in that case support them.

Michael Wills: There is a broad measure of agreement on these provisions, but I shall briefly address the points that have been raised.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised specific concerns about dual criminality. As he will be aware, the provisions essentially reflect those that are already in place for this Chamber. He made the helpful suggestion that we should include only acts that are offences in the United Kingdom, but that would not catch a disproportionality in sentencing. It would include the category of offence, but in many jurisdictions offences are treated very differently. That is why it is important that the other place should have discretion in that area.

David Heath: I appreciate that disproportionality of sentence would not be caught, and it is right that the House of Lords should address that by resolution, but it seems inappropriate that there should be any question of forfeiture for something that is not a crime in the United Kingdom. I was asking only that the Minister consider that point and whether an amendment could be tabled to deal with that circumstance.

Michael Wills: Our view is that that is for the other place to decide. I am sure that Members there will read the report of our proceedings and will take that point into account. I found the hon. Gentleman's points eminently reasonable and I am sure that the other place will take the same view of them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specifically what the words other provision in clause 31(8) might mean. Simply put, that would enable the House to include further matters in the resolution, such as a description of the peer's offence.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Grantham-

Douglas Hogg: That is Quentin Davis!

Michael Wills: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He raised two important points, one of which I hope I have already dealt with. He made an important distinction between personally disreputable behaviour and behaviour that brings the House into disrepute. Again, it is a matter for the other place to judge on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that it will take note of what he has said, because there is an important distinction. I think that the clause catches that and allows the other place appropriate discretion, and I hope that that reassures him. We are happy to listen to further representations on the point and, if necessary, we will make adjustments.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman then raised a fundamental point about natural justice in the operation of the procedure. It is important to be reminded of that. I think that both Houses have behaved properly at all times and there has been no evidence-that I can think of-of such behaviour taking place. However, he is right to alert us to the risk of its taking place at some point in future. I hope that I can offer him some reassurance in the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered this and felt that it was compatible with natural justice and the principles of common law. However, for reasons to which he alluded, it is not appropriate for this House to stipulate such things. In any event, his point is well made and I am sure that the other place will take account of it.
	Finally, I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that schedule 4 contains various supplementary provisions that set out the consequences of removing hereditary and life peers on the number of accepted hereditary peers remaining in the House; in relation to the right of life peers to vote and stand in elections to the Commons; and the eligibility of both hereditary and life peers for membership of the House of Lords. None of those provisions has any retrospective effect.
	I hope that those remarks have reassured Members and that the Committee will feel able to agree the provisions.

Peter Bottomley: May I add a word, Sir Michael? It might be useful if the other place could consider adding the words the disreputable between that and conduct in clause 31(2)(b), which would allow paragraph (a) to be left out completely. In effect, the condition would be: that the disreputable conduct warrants the loss of the person's entitlement. That would get rid of any unnecessary excuses from any Member of the other place who might be involved.
	The last suggestion that I want to put in the Minister's mind, although it does not particularly follow from today's debate, is that it would seem to be a double penalty on a Member of the other place were a judge to say that an ordinary person, having been convicted of an offence, should be sentenced to nine months in jail, but that a Member of the other place be sentenced to 15 months. One needs to be aware of that possibility.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 4 agreed to.
	 Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: After reflection, it has been thought that amendment 94 should join the next group of amendments.

Clause 32
	  
	Resignation from the House of Lords

Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment 60, page 16, line 39, leave out 'resign' and insert
	'seek permanent leave of absence'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 61, page 16, line 40, leave out 'resigns' and insert 'obtains such leave'.
	Amendment 62, page 16, line 40, leave out 'of the peer's resignation'.
	Amendment 63, page 16, line 42, leave out 'resigning peer' and insert 'peer seeking permanent leave'.
	Amendment 64, page 17, line 3, leave out 'resigning'.
	Amendment 65, page 17, line 3, at end insert
	'confirming the grant of permanent leave of absence.'.
	Amendment 66, page 17, line 4, leave out 'resignation' and insert 'permanent leave'.
	Amendment 94, page 17, line 4, at end insert-
	'(6) A person who has resigned from the House of Lords under this section may not be nominated for election to the House of Commons for a period of five years after the certificate takes effect.'.

Douglas Hogg: Amendments 60 to 66 originally stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who unhappily is in Northern Ireland today, for which he wishes to express his apologies to the Committee. However, I was pleased to add my name to the amendments, because I had in fact put down one similar to Liberal Democrat amendment 94. I therefore had no difficulty in supporting my hon. Friend.
	Amendments 60 to 66 would prevent a Member from resigning from the other place so as to be eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons. By taking leave of absence, a peer would remain a peer, albeit one not able to attend the other place for the period of the leave of absence. My hon. Friend and I had the following broad motivations: first, I observe generally that one should encourage peers who feel that they are getting old to take a leave of absence, because there are far too many peers of a certain age in the other place, which is now very heavily populated. As has been said, there are too many peers of the realm, and a leave of absence would diminish their number.
	Secondly, I want to address the question whether it is right for a peer to cease to be an effective peer for the purposes of standing as a Member in this House. On that, I share the view of the Liberal Democrats; I do not think that it is right. Or at least it might be desirable to have a gap of five years in the circumstances set out in amendment 94, which I shall support if it is put to a Division.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may like to know that in the cross-party discussions on the future of the House of Lords, all parties agreed that it is undesirable for people to move from a reconstituted House of Lords to the House of Commons without an intermediate break.

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, that is why I originally tabled my own amendment, why I am happy to support the Liberal Democrat amendment and why I feel comfortable with amendments 60 to 66.
	One could advance several arguments in support of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just said. First, one would not be doing an injustice to any peer, because under the current composition of the other place, everyone sitting there is a volunteer: they are either hereditary peers who have chosen to stay on as one of the 90, or they have accepted a life peerage. So they are all volunteers. That is different from the situation before-I think-the Peerage Act 1963, when Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and, for that matter, my father, were obliged to go to the House of Lords. Therefore a nobility was created to be disclaimed, thus enabling them to come back here, but they were not volunteers; they were protesters who did not want to be in the House of Lords, so there is a difference in kind. Every Member of the House of Lords now is a volunteer.
	The second point is this. If we allow swapping of the kind that we are talking about, it will diminish the dignity and standing of the other place. As I want the dignity and standing of the other place to be enhanced whenever I have the opportunity to enhance it, I am happy to move amendment 60. Allowing such swapping would also, I suspect, diminish independence. One of the most important things is that Members of the other place have jolly little to gain prospectively, unless they hope to be Ministers.
	Incidentally, I agree with the points made in a previous debate by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. There is a powerful argument for saying that Members of the other place should not be Ministers, but that is a broader argument, which I suspect you do not want me to pursue now, Sir Michael. However, the point is that one does not wish to create in the other place any circumstances that could diminish the independence of mind of those who sit there. If their lordships think that by resigning they can come back to this place and perhaps occupy a prominent part in the affairs of this House, they may achieve great things, but that would diminish their independence, and I am very much against that.
	I heard the Minister say earlier that there is nothing in clause 32 that is designed to benefit a particular person. I think that I know who that person is-Lord Mandelson, for whom in many ways, particularly because of his political skills, I have a great deal of admiration. However, he is a good case in point, because he has chosen to go to the House of Lords. It is not clear to me that we are doing him an injustice by preventing him from coming back here-and goodness knows, we do not want to create any further incentive, lest he should lose his remaining sense of independence. Although it is just possible that the clause was not crafted with Lord Mandelson in mind, if it is possible that it was, he is a good example of why we should not pass it.
	My final point is that I think that either the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome or the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is minded to press amendment 94 to a Division, which would be dependent on my not pressing amendment 60 to a Division. If I had the leave of the Committee to do so, I would be happy not to press the amendment standing in my name; and if you were minded to call amendment 94, Sir Michael, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I would personally be happy to support it.

David Howarth: To deal with the final point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I should like to seek the opportunity to press amendment 94 to the vote, if the occasion so arises. I also gratefully adopt his arguments for that amendment.
	I would be surprised if the Government were to resist a five-year moratorium between resigning from the Lords and coming-or perhaps coming back-to this place. In the 2007 White Paper, The House of Lords: Reform, the Government said that the Wakeham commission and the Public Administration Committee had both recommended a 10-year waiting period, while the Breaking the Deadlock paper, which Members might remember, went for a five-year moratorium. The Government commented on those proposals and said that they were minded to agree with the five-year period. In the 2009 White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber, the Government also suggested a cooling-off period of five years, and seemed to accept the arguments in favour of that proposal that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just laid out.
	In particular, the Government said that the House of Lords should not be used as a political base for a House of Commons career. The reasons for that are twofold. The first, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, is a matter of the dignity of the other place and of how it is regarded. The second is that relations between the two Houses would be enhanced if Members of the House of Lords were to go there in the knowledge that it was to be their political job for the foreseeable future to sit in the revising Chamber, to stick to their job, and not to harbour hopes of coming back to this House for a different role.
	I, too, cannot speculate as to why the Government appear to have changed their mind about this matter. Perhaps it does involve the noble Lord Mandelson, or perhaps the House of Lords is teeming with potential Prime Ministers or potential Chancellors of the Exchequer-the convention being that those two offices may be held only in this House.
	This leads us to another version of the first reason for a moratorium. That is that we do not want the House of Lords, whether appointed or elected, to be full of young men in a hurry-

Douglas Hogg: Your sort of age, David.

David Howarth: Well, young is a relative term. The average age in the House of Lords is 68.
	We do not want the House of Lords to be full of people who have an eye to a future political career at very high level. It is a virtue of the present House of Lords, which I wish to preserve in any future reforms, that it consists of people of moderate, rather than overwhelming, political ambition-

Douglas Hogg: Stuffed full of Liberal Democrats.

David Howarth: That, of course, is another reason why the House of Lords is a splendid place, and its virtues should be preserved in any reform.
	For all those reasons, I urge the Government to re-adopt this policy. I shall be fascinated to hear whether they have indeed done a U-turn on this matter, and to discover the reasons for that. With that, I shall conclude my remarks, but I repeat my request that, if possible, we vote on amendment 94.

Peter Bottomley: I suppose that I ought to declare that my wife sits in the House of Lords, although my remarks are not directed at her.
	There might be a convention that the Prime Minister does not sit in the House of Lords, but-in answer to an obscure pub quiz question-it is less than 60 years since a Prime Minister did sit in the upper House.
	I wonder whether we ought to have the same provision as that proposed in amendment 94 for ourselves. Perhaps we should say that no one may be appointed to the House of Lords for five years after ceasing to be a Member of Parliament. That would result in a convention, of which I would approve, that, were a Speaker to resign the speakership during a Parliament, they could continue to serve their constituents until the next election and become eligible to go to the House of Lords thereafter. However, that is slightly beside the point that we are considering at the moment.
	I do not believe that permanent leave is desirable. I can think of one Member of the House of Lords who decided that he should not go on serving there and who took leave. Most of those in the House of Lords would like to have him back, however, and such people ought to be able to change their minds.
	On a separate issue, what would happen to Members of the House of Lords who ceased to be Members of the House of Lords, because their position had come to an end? That used to happen in the case of Law Lords and, certainly, of most bishops, unless they were appointed to the House of Lords as a life peer. Would a retired Law Lord be eligible to be elected to the House of Commons? Would a retired bishop who had had the seniority to get into the House of Lords be eligible to be elected to this House? That might be set down in statute, but I do not know the answer. We should perhaps consider these questions as though they applied to Members of the House of Commons going to the House of Lords as well as vice versa. There is a proper convention that we refer to the House of Lords as the upper House as well as the other place. It is the upper House, but we ought not to think of this as one-way traffic. I believe that a five-year gap would be better than a 10-year gap, and if the Liberal amendment were pressed to a vote, I would support it.

Dominic Grieve: It has been a central feature of membership of the House of Lords in recent years that it carries with it a greater sign of independence from the constraints or pressures of Government or party. Generally, such a person may have had a distinguished career in this place first, but once they have gone to the other place, the implications are clear that their aspirations to the highest ministerial office disappear. I think that there has been a general view around the Chamber that that is a good thing.
	I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time on the generality of the clause, because we will have a separate stand part debate, but may I say simply that the principle that a person may resign from the House of Lords and subsequently, according to choice, disclaim their peerage-it is a matter for them-is a novelty, irrespective of whether safeguards are introduced to prevent somebody using the House of Lords as an antechamber to entering this place. That has given me some anxiety, which is substantially curable if the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), or the Liberal Democrat amendment, is accepted. On that basis, if the Liberal Democrats press amendment 94 to a vote, we will support them. It is essential to have a mechanism to ensure that a person cannot use an appointment to the House of Lords as an antechamber to a political career in this place.
	The issue goes further than that. I would be grateful if the Minister corrected me if I have got it wrong, but it seems to me that nothing in the system of resignation under clause 32 would prevent such events happening on a multiplicity of occasions. The Prime Minister could promote a person to the House of Lords as a Minister-the current Prime Minister has appointed 11 since he came to office; they are the ones known mainly as GOATs-and if the Bill were passed on the last day of this Parliament, one could envisage them deciding to resign their peerage, standing for election to the House, and if elected, having a career. The Prime Minister could then say on a whim, Actually you would be much more useful to me in the House of Lords at the moment. I am going to make you a peer. As the Minister knows, under the current untrammelled patronage enjoyed by the Prime Minister, that would happen automatically. They could go back to the House of Lords, and perhaps take on a new peerage title. In the case of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, he might have to find a couple of other places where he has placed his seat at various times-

David Howarth: Brussels.

Dominic Grieve: That is a possibility. Queen Anne's Gate also springs to mind. I am afraid that I cannot remember the place where he bought the flat under mortgage, but I think it was somewhere in Notting Hill, so that could creep into his title too. After another period in the House of Lords, he could decide to resign under the provisions, because multiple resignations are not prohibited. Not prohibiting multiple resignations is a lacuna in the Bill, to which the other place might have to return.
	Having listened to the debate, which has latched on to the key issues, I am minded to urge my colleagues to support amendment 94. If amendment 94 fails to get the necessary support, my judgment is that we should oppose clause stand part. If the choice is between prohibiting resignation altogether, and a situation in which permitting resignation would allow the practices that I have outlined, I much prefer to stick to the current rules, which make resignation impossible. It is, after all, currently regarded as a life sentence and, apart from misbehaviour, I cannot think of a particularly good reason why that should not continue. However, I recognise that there has been an argument put forward in favour of resignation as it would enable those who feel that their useful time in the House of Lords has come to an end to go, thereby freeing up a place that might be taken more sensibly by somebody younger. That is the only argument that seems to me to have any validity.

Douglas Hogg: That of course can be dealt with by taking leave of absence.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed it can, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment would be adequate. For exactly the same reasons as he has given, the Liberal Democrat amendment puts the Government on the spot, partly because it strikes me as being so reasonable. One could argue for 10 years without any great difficulty. We have to make absolutely sure that the sort of prime ministerial patronage that can allow somebody to maintain their career by bouncing down the Corridor from one end to the other is undesirable and should be stopped. If at the end of the day the price to be paid for achieving that is to get rid of clause 32 entirely, at present we would do that. If amendment No. 94 is not carried, we will certainly seek to delete the clause in its entirety.

Michael Wills: We have had an interesting debate and it will not surprise hon. Members to hear me say that we will ask the Committee not to support the amendments. We ask for the amendment to be withdrawn, although I do not suppose that it will be.
	I want to deal with the various points that have been made and then deal with a point of principle as to why we are objecting. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that, unless the amendments were accepted, the status of the second Chamber would be diminished. His colleague, the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), made the opposite point; he did not see why the movement of a Member from this place to the other place diminished the position of this place. He is absolutely right. A Member of the other place wanting to come here does not diminish the status of the second Chamber-it has a discrete and different function-any more than a Member of this place moving to the other place, as many have done over the years, diminishes the status of this place. Those individuals are at a different stage of their life and are seeking fulfilment in public service in a different way. That is the function of the two different Chambers.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister is taking my argument down a direction that I had not intended; he is right to do so. People cannot stay here for more than five years as their term expires. Parliaments expire; I stop being an MP when they expire. People who go to the other place can stay there for life. That is a difference.

Michael Wills: It is a difference and I am grateful for the elucidation but I do not accept that it diminishes the status of the second Chamber.
	More generally, almost every Member who has spoken in favour of the amendments has made broadly the same point, which has then been amplified into a great frolicking fantasy by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about Members switching endlessly between the two Houses. This is a serious point; we certainly do not want to see the sort of situation to which he referred, in which one House is used as an antechamber for the other. These two Houses have discrete and important functions and should be treated with equal dignity and respect. He is right to draw attention to any such risk but I simply do not believe that that will happen.
	Most Members come to the appointed and partially hereditary Chamber at the end of a long and distinguished career in public service. I believe that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) suggested in an intervention that the average age for someone's doing so is the late 60s. That is the position so, with all due respect, I must say that it is fanciful to think that there will be many, if any, Members of the other place who will use these provisions to resign and stand for election in this place. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he said that the debate has latched on absolutely to the main issues. To a large extent that is true, but he has missed out the most fundamental issue and the most fundamental guarantee.  [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has suddenly turned up to hear-

Andrew Robathan: Your peroration.

Michael Wills: Most grateful I am too. The fundamental guarantee is the British electorate. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman is laughing at his voters. That is not necessarily wise in view of an imminent general election, so I suggest that he just listens to this point. If somebody resigns from the other place to take advantage of these provisions and stand for election to this place, they will be judged by the electors. I have no doubt that if, as he fears, people were shamelessly to use the other place as an antechamber-those were his words-for this place, they would be judged harshly by the voters in the constituency for which they are standing.

Dominic Grieve: That guarantee does not seem to amount to very much. Does the Minister not see that the Bill contains no provision to prevent multiple resignations? If he wished to stop that practice, one mechanism that he could use-even without resort to amendment 94-would be to say that someone can resign from the House of Lords only once. Even that is not in this Bill, so someone can resign from the Lords as many times as they have been appointed to it. The Prime Minister's powers of patronage are infinite, so why not do something about it to provide reassurance?

Michael Wills: I was coming to just that point. I have heard no good reason as to why Members of the other place should be treated differently from every other politician in public life, and indeed everyone else in public life. They are all entitled to resign without being subject to the cooling-off periods being proposed in these amendments. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so derisive of the voice of the electorate in this matter. I have no doubt that if the sort of scenario-he might wish to listen to this-that he has been conjuring up were to take place, the voters of the constituency for which that individual was standing would judge that individual harshly. The vote is the single most important guarantor of our liberties and our constitutional freedoms yet devised, and I am sorry that he takes it so lightly.

David Heath: I would like the Minister to explain one simple fact. The argument that he is putting forward is the diametric opposite of what the Lord Chancellor put forward as an argument in the all-party talks on the future of the House of Lords. In those talks, we had a consensus on the merit of having a period when a person who had resigned from the House of Lords was not able to stand for election to this House. Why is the Minister putting forward the opposite argument to that advanced by his Secretary of State?

Michael Wills: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although I will not be standing for election again and in a few months' time I will never again be seen at this Dispatch Box, my comments reflect the current views of the Secretary of State.

Dominic Grieve: In France, it is rather normal to go from the National Assembly to the Senate and back again; it is done as a matter of routine. Once one starts corrupting the electorate's expectations so that they accept something as the norm, one gets away with it. As we do not think that such actions should happen, why do we not legislate to make sure that they do not?

Michael Wills: I have been a Front Bencher for some considerable time, and I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman level all manner of accusations at the Government, but he has never yet accused us of trying to replicate the French model of government. There is a first time for everything. May I just assure him that we are not seeking to replicate such a system?
	I have not heard from any of the hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me any reason why they have such a profound mistrust of the British voter. The scenarios that they all conjure up of people using the other place as an antechamber from which to springboard into here ignore the fact that British voters have, historically, taken a very harsh view of such exploitation of our democratic system. They have punished people who have sought to exploit the system in that way; there are many examples of that in recent political history. I have no reason to doubt that they will do so again. That ought to be a guarantee for all the hon. Members who are so worried about that scenario.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister understand that we cannot accept that guarantee? Consider a person in the other place who decides to stand down and come to this place. His party parachutes him into a very safe seat. I can tell the Minister now that that person will be elected to that very safe seat.

Michael Wills: I would usually bow to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's much greater political experience, but he need only look at the history books: often, particularly in the sorts of circumstances to which he refers, seats that party machines thought were safe have proved to be anything but safe because, in the end, there is only so much that the British public will stomach.

Eleanor Laing: indicated dissent.

Michael Wills: Well, I have much greater faith in the British voter than any of the Conservative Members present.

Colin Breed: Can the Minister not see that, when it comes to many other aspects of this place, and in other fields, a period of time is provided for, in respect of the so-called revolving door? We do not want the Door to the Chamber to become a revolving door.

Michael Wills: I agree; no one wants that, nor is there any realistic risk of that happening. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. They would put Members of the other place in an unenviable position, placing restrictions on them that are not placed on any other politician in democratic life in this country. No good reason for doing so has yet been advanced, particularly in view of the fact that Members of the other place would still have to seek election to this place. As I say, that is the biggest guarantor of all that the scenarios described would not arise. I ask hon. Members to think again about the amendments, which I do not think are necessary. However, I fear that I will not prove to be persuasive.

Douglas Hogg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Amendment proposed: 94, page 17, line 4, at end insert-
	'(6) A person who has resigned from the House of Lords under this section may not be nominated for election to the House of Commons for a period of five years after the certificate takes effect.'.- (David Howarth.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 179, Noes 270.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: For the reasons that I gave earlier, we shall oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. In its unamended condition, it will allow all the mischief that we have complained about to take place.

Michael Wills: I am extremely sorry to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that, because the clause will provide a much-needed reform. I have already tried to explain to him why all manner of mischief that he is so worried about will not take place. I am sorry that he has so little trust in the British electorate. I am also sorry that the Liberals have absolutely no interest in the debate, but there we are.
	It is worth taking a few minutes to spell out why the clause is necessary. [Hon. Members: Oh no!] Oh yes, oh yes!

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Of course the Minister must say whatever he wants to say, but we have already dipped into the clause- [Interruption.] Order. I trust that the Minister's remarks will reflect the fact that we have already touched on clause 32 stand part.

Michael Wills: We have indeed, which is why I said that my remarks will be brief. I say this in the hope that Conservative Members might rethink their opposition to the clause. It is ill considered and meretricious, but there it is.
	There is no mechanism by which a peer can resign from the House of Lords. The clause will set such a mechanism in place. Resignation is available in all other walks of life. We can no longer deny it to the House of Lords. There are many reasons why Members might want to resign from the House of Lords and this provision provides them with an opportunity to do so. We think that is right and fair. I hope that Members on the Opposition Benches will rethink their opposition to the clause and support it.
	 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	 The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 270, Noes 177.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 3 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33
	  
	Disclaimer of peerage

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Wills: The clause allows former Members of the House of Lords who have been removed under the provisions of clause 30, in other words by disqualification, expulsion or resignation, to disclaim their peerage. Currently, because life peers remain Members of the House for their lifetime and cannot voluntarily relinquish their seat or be removed except by an Act of Parliament, there is no provision for them to disclaim their peerage. As the Bill creates the right for both hereditary and life peers to leave the House voluntarily by resignation, it is fair that that right should be accompanied by the option to disclaim a peerage.
	As the Bill creates new powers of removal by non-voluntary means through automatic disqualification and expulsion, it is logical to extend the right of disclaimer to peers in those groups, too. The mechanism for disclaimer is set out in subsections (3) to (5). A former Member is required to give notice to the Lord Chancellor, and then the disclaimer will take effect upon his or her signing a certificate of receipt of that notice. As the Keeper of the Great Seal by which letters patent are issued to individuals elevated to the peerage, it is appropriate that the function in question be conferred on the office of Lord Chancellor.
	The effect of disclaimer is set out at subsections (7) and (8). Life and hereditary peers are to be divested of all interests in the peerage and the titles, offices and privileges connected to it, as well as being relieved of all obligations and disabilities arising from it, one of which is of course the bar on voting or standing in elections to the House of Commons. I am sure that you will agree, Sir Michael, that it is only right that Members of the House of Lords are able to disclaim their peerage if they no longer intend or are able to sit as a Member.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has explained very well why it is necessary to have clause 33, and I do not disagree with him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)-he has been in his place all day, and now he is not-made a distinction earlier between what he described as volunteer peers and those who have the peerage thrust upon them. He is well qualified to address the matter.
	My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely correct in saying that there has to be a mechanism whereby someone can choose not to be a peer. In any other walk of life we believe in choice and the freedom of the individual, so it would simply be wrong to force a particular role in life on someone, even if it might appear to be a great honour, if they did not wish to take on that honour and the responsibilities and duties that come with it. We entirely see that the clause is necessary, so we support the Government on it.

Tony Wright: If ever there were a demonstration of the need to go further than the clauses in the Bill, it is clause 33. It is sensible for someone departing from the House of Lords to renounce their title, but we all know that that is not the issue. The issue, which has dogged all discussion on this matter from the beginning of time, is the confusion of service in the second Chamber of the legislature with a title. Until we address that squarely, we are going to keep coming back to it over and over again.
	The House of Lords Appointments Commission laments the fact that many of those it appoints to the House of Lords as distinguished people do not attend properly. They do not attend properly because it turns out that what they really wanted was the peerage, not to sit looking at Bills.
	We know that most people want the title, so I could understand a provision that said, Let's separate these things out. Let's remove the peerage from people who sit in the second Chamber. That would be a sensible way to proceed. Simply proceeding by saying, Let's give people who are departing the ability to renounce their peerage too offers a kind of choice, but not the kind that will make any difference.

Eleanor Laing: As a matter of debate, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in fact, there is an anomaly? I appreciate what he says about titles, but very many people who hold hereditary titles as peers of the realm do not take their seats in the House of Lords. Is he arguing that a person should be able to use their title only if they are an active Member of the House of Lords?

Tony Wright: The hon. Lady got herself into some trouble on voting to continue the hereditary peerage, but this is a simple point. We have an honours system, and we have a second Chamber, but the two are confused. I am not going to argue about the honours system-it is perfectly possible to argue that it is an admirable system, but I do not think it is-but it is clear that by confusing it with service in the second Chamber, we have got ourselves into an awful lot of difficulty. At some point, we are going to have to resolve that. Clause 33, although useful in its own very limited way, does not do so.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34
	  
	Supplementary provision

David Howarth: I beg to move amendment 26, page 17, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
	The amendment is about bishops and archbishops. The effect of clause 34 is to exempt the archbishops and bishops who sit in the other place from the disciplinary provisions that we have just agreed. I am not a Dawkinsite and I am not against bishops on principle-some of my best friends are archbishops-but I cannot see why they are exempted from the provisions.
	There is an argument that archbishops and bishops are subject to Church discipline, but other members of the House of Lords are subject to discipline in their professions and parties. There is an argument that the Church should not be subject to state power, but it is an established Church and therefore subject to state power in a lot of different ways. There is an argument that it is not right to cast aspersions on bishops and to say that they are the kind of people who might break rules and act in a way that lands them in jail for a year and gets them expelled from the Lords, but the same applies to hundreds of peers who, to be blunt, have acted honourably in the past decade-they do not deserve to have aspersions cast on them, unlike those who have not acted well.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Howarth: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I want the Minister to have time to reply.
	If bishops do not want to be part of politics, that would be fine. My party has supported disestablishment for a long time, and we think that it would be better for the Church to distance itself from the ordinary institutions of government. However, if the bishops want to be in politics, they must accept that they are in on the same terms as everyone else.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman asks why the bishops should be treated differently. The reason is simple: they are in a completely different position to every other member of the other place. Unlike every other member of the House of Lords, Church of England archbishops and bishops may already be permanently removed from the Chamber under a statutory framework for dealing with misconduct. They are in a different position from the members of all the other professions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are also the only Members who may resign from the House.
	The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 provides that a bishop who commits misconduct may have his conduct investigated and referred for a hearing and determination at the court of the Vicar General. The court may direct the removal of the bishop from the House of Lords. If a bishop has been convicted of a criminal offence and receives a sentence of imprisonment, he may be removed from his office at the discretion of the archbishop, without that procedure being engaged. A bishop may also resign by giving up his diocese, which would again lead to the automatic loss of his seat in the House of Lords. So we do not need to provide for bishops in the way proposed, and nor would it be appropriate to do so.
	The bishops are members of the House of Lords by virtue of their position within the Church of England, because of the unique place the Church has in our constitution. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not want it to have that place, but it does have it. As members of the Church of England, bishops are, first and foremost, subject to the disciplinary sanctions provided by the Church. It is possible for the Church to remove such members under its misconduct provisions quickly and easily.
	The provisions on removal of members of the House of Lords in part 3 of this Bill are primarily concerned with supporting the House in the disciplining of its members, by providing sanctions for misconduct. The provisions also address the needs of those peers who wish to resign from the House. These are valuable and welcome provisions-I am sure that the public will agree-but we have no need to extend them to cover the conduct of the bishops. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and that he will seek to withdraw this amendment.

David Howarth: That was a fascinating defence, but I am not sure that I was convinced by it. The essence of the argument seems to be that there is a link between the bishops' professional discipline and their place in the Lords, so I suppose that that does provide a difference between their position and that of other professions. Nevertheless, the Minister is right that to my party the place of the bishops in the Lords is an unacceptable anomaly.

Dominic Grieve: It may be an anomaly, but the Church of England remains established. If the Church became disestablished, the bishops would leave anyway, and at that point the hon. Gentleman's arguments might have more force. It is a circular argument, and I think that the Minister is right. If the matter were to be pressed to a Division, we would support the Government.

David Howarth: I accept that point, but there is a logical connection between our position on this issue and our position on disestablishment. That is not part of this Bill-more is the pity, although perhaps it covers enough issues already. In any case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Wills: This clause deals with supplementary matters relating to this part of the Bill. Clause 34(1) has the effect that a life or hereditary peer in the House of Lords who sits in and votes on its proceedings despite meeting the conditions required for disqualification or after being expelled or suspended shall not cause the proceedings to be brought into question. The provision also applies to those who have resigned. It is primarily intended to address the types of circumstances in which a Member might more easily conceal actions that would lead to their removal under the discipline provisions of the Bill. That could be a risk if a serious offence and subsequent sentence and conviction occurs abroad.
	Some might argue, of course, that if a person who is not considered fit and proper to sit causes legislation to reach the statute book in a different form from what it would otherwise have been, it should require correction. However, by the same logic, we would have to call into question legislation passed, during consideration of which, for example, a peer had sat and voted who at the time had committed a serious criminal offence, but who had not yet been found guilty and therefore disqualified or expelled from the House.
	It is highly undesirable, of course, that a Member who is not entitled to sit and vote-
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again ( Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Progress reported; Committee to sit again  tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Health and Health Services and Social Welfare) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 December, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 6 January, be approved. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Dairy Market Situation

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12289/09 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication on the Dairy Market Situation 2009, and European Union Document No. 14270/09, draft Council Regulation amending Regulation 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation); notes further the establishment by the European Commission of the High Level Group on milk to discuss medium and long-term arrangements for the dairy sector; and supports the Government's objectives of ensuring a UK dairy supply chain that has a sound long-term future, is competitive, profitable and responsive to market demand and which only receives subsidies for the delivery of public goods. -(Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 28 January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business. - (Helen Jones . )

Hon. Members: Object.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,
	That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2009 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees). -(  Helen Jones .)

Hon. Members: Object

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 3 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Alan Johnson relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, and shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary John Denham relating to Local Government Finance and Council Tax not later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Police Grant Report; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. -(Helen Jones.)

PETITIONS

Badman Report (West Dorset)

Oliver Letwin: I rise to ask the House to consider the petition of 29 of my constituents who are involved in home education. I myself have been involved with many of them. On the whole, they offer their children an excellent education. They are already properly regulated by the elective home education guidelines in Dorset, and I see no reason why they should not be able to be so regulated in the future. The petition requests that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, his proposals to implement the Badman report.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of person s resident in the West Dorset parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000720]

Bank Branch Closure (Thurnscoe)

Jeff Ennis: I wish to present a petition on behalf of more than 250 residents in the former mining village of Thurnscoe in my constituency.
	The petitions states:
	The Petition of residents of Thurnscoe in Barnsley and others,
	Declares that when the Thurnscoe branch of HSBC closes on the fifth of February, it will mean that customers will have to travel to either the Wath branch or the Barnsley branch, both of which are approximately nine miles away.
	Further declares that travelling to either of the other branches is difficult because bus services are only once an hour, and because many affected people are OAPs without any other means of transport.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the Thurnscoe branch of HSBC remains open for one or more days a week.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000721]

Homosexuals (Right to Marriage)

Stephen Williams: This petition comes mainly from students at Fairfield high school.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Bristol and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners disapprove of the fact that homosexuals do not have the right to a legal ceremony of marriage.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward legislation to give homosexuals the right to a legal ceremony of marriage.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000707]

Gaza

Stephen Williams: This petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Bristol and others,
	Declares that the Government should fulfil its responsibilities as a high contracting party to the Geneva Convention.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately take steps to institute a war crimes investigation in the UK into Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip between 27th December and 18th January 2009, and for the UK prosecuting authorities to search out and prosecute (or extradite for trial elsewhere) all suspected war criminals identified by the investigation; and urges the Government to seek a binding resolution at the UN Security Council to establish an international commission of inquiry into the Gaza attacks and the referral of potential cases to the International Criminal Court.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000706]

CADBURY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Steve McCabe.)

Lynne Jones: A week today, we will know whether Cadbury shareholders have succumbed to the offer from Kraft, worth 850p a share. There is still time for investors to look to the long-term value of the company, which is currently in good health, with no debts. In contrast, Kraft's debts will have gone from $10 billion in 2006 to $30 billion if it succeeds in taking over Cadbury. However, the signs that Cadbury will remain in British hands are not optimistic, given that more than a quarter of shareholders are now hedge funds, those Johnny-come-latelies who bought into the company only to make a fast buck.
	Since coming to power in 1997, new Labour has fully embraced the Anglo-Saxon model of unfettered market capitalism, such that, as Lord Myners has acknowledged, it is easier to take over a company here than anywhere else in the world. So when the Business Secretary made his exhortation before Christmas, saying that Kraft would face huge opposition from the Government if it tried to make a quick buck out of Cadbury, he could not deliver on that commitment. I therefore want to use the opportunity of this debate to explore what lessons can be learned from the Cadbury debacle, to try to ensure that other British companies do not similarly fall prey to hostile takeovers that are in the interests of neither the company nor UK plc.
	That is not to say that I want to argue that all takeovers are bad or that I want to return to devil-take-the-hindmost protectionism. Britain has greatly benefited from overseas investment by companies such as Toyota and Honda. I do not want to discourage such long-term investment, which has brought improved technological and management capabilities. My concern is for those British-owned companies that are well run and have good prospects for retaining high-value-added functions in the UK, creating jobs in research and innovation and jobs requiring high skills. The Government cannot pick winners, but they should create a framework in which such companies can prosper but not be so easily subject to predatory activity. We have learned over the credit crunch of the importance of the relationship between the enabling state and successful business. I hope that we have learned that Keynesian economics should not have been so casually abandoned.
	People in Birmingham and the west midlands have been hard hit by the recession-the consequence of an over-reliance on financial services and the downgrading of the importance given to manufacturing. Even though Rover, LDV and HP Foods were struggling companies, their demise hit us hard. However, when we woke up last Tuesday morning and heard that the board of Cadbury was going to recommend that shareholders accept the Kraft offer, we were shocked and angry. Was it not only seven days previously that Cadbury had issued a revised document to shareholders urging them to reject a bid representing only 12 times historical earnings? Why was the last-minute higher offer, at just under 13 times historical earnings-still a derisory multiple compared with takeovers of comparable well-branded food businesses-suddenly deemed acceptable? Surely all the arguments about the importance of keeping Cadbury independent as a successful and profitable British company were as valid then as they were only a week earlier.
	The answer to the abandonment of all logic beyond that of the casino must surely lie in the activities of hedge funds and other investors who are interested in buying shares with the sole aim of profiteering from a takeover battle. They do not care about the long-term health of the company, and, in the case of Cadbury, they are quite happy to see the successor company saddled with a further £7 billion of debt, so long as they get their payout. So it is not Kraft that has made a quick buck, but fly-by-night investors. It is deeply disappointing that the Cadbury board capitulated to the pressure from those hedge funds and other shareholders, who were making it known that they would be prepared to accept a higher bid from Kraft-in some cases a bid as low as 830p a share.
	That is the reality of the light-touch regulation of market capitalism that we experience today. The good will towards Cadbury from its employees and the wider population, as well as from small investors and some corporate shareholders, is apparently worthless against such an onslaught. The Cadbury board owes a fiduciary duty only to its shareholders. That cannot be right. Narrowly defined share value is not a measure of real worth. Employees' commitment feeds into the bottom line.

Gisela Stuart: Does my hon. Friend share my outrage that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) saw fit, when describing the Cadbury work force, to say:
	who wants to hire a whingeing workforce when you could hire a really positive upbeat one?
	Surely we need to talk up the work force in order to support Cadbury in Birmingham.

Lynne Jones: That is exactly right. My hon. Friend makes my point for me.

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Jones: We have an excellent work force at Cadbury who have committed themselves to working hard-

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) seeks to misrepresent my true feelings about this particular debate. What I actually said was:
	I have seen the trade unions talking down this company and I worry that by sending out such negative signals it puts people's jobs more at risk because who wants to hire a whingeing workforce when you could hire a really positive upbeat one?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that personalities are best kept out of this. This is a serious subject about which many thousands of people will be concerned. That is the subject matter of this debate, as represented by the presence of hon. Members this evening. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned his name, but this is not a point of order. He is seeking to continue the debate. Maybe, at some point, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) will allow a further intervention, but that is up to her.

Lynne Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman's words condemn him themselves, in terms of his attitude towards the work force and the trade unions-

Bill Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that those hon. Members, both of whom have spoken in the debate, and both of whom have received money to their constituency Labour parties-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order-

Bill Wiggin: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman's original intervention was not a point of order, and his second one certainly is not. I have also-

Bill Wiggin: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have also appealed for this debate to be taken seriously. This is a matter of considerable national interest as well as being a matter of interest in the Birmingham and west midlands area, and it should be dealt with on that basis. I hope that there will be no more personality references, because they are not serving the interests of Cadbury employees at all.

Lynne Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is quite clear from the number of Members attending this debate that there is considerable interest in it. In December, a delegation of Birmingham MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), and representatives of Unite, who were fighting on behalf of the company, met Lord Mandelson to urge the Government to support the campaign to keep Cadbury a British company. We were grateful to him for using the power of words, but nothing concrete came out of the meeting except a surprising admission from the Secretary of State that new laws might be needed to ensure good stewardship of companies. The latest twist in the Cadbury affair demonstrates that this is indeed the case, and the Government must now urgently examine what regulations could be introduced to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are considered.
	I am not an expert in this area, but I expect the Government to look to those with such expertise to put on their thinking caps. I understand that there are proposals coming from the EU for the stronger regulation of hedge funds. Other measures that have been suggested include the barring of short-term shareholders from voting in takeover battles, and capping the amount of debt that can be taken on.
	In an interview with the  Financial  Times last November, Lord Mandelson said that if he could turn the clock back, he would like to see more large UK-owned manufacturers because of their role in creating wealth. Looking forward, what action are the Government prepared to take to ensure that we do not have even fewer UK-owned companies?
	Before I move on to the future for Cadbury if the Kraft takeover goes ahead, I must mention the role of majority-state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in helping to finance the Kraft bid. That is a cause of great consternation among taxpayers, who see the bank as using their money to put British workers on the dole, as well as stabbing Cadbury, one of their corporate customers, in the back. The argument that if it withdrew another institution would step up in its place does not wash with my constituents. It is the argument used to justify other dubious activities, such as selling arms or trading with repressive regimes. Surely such investment would be better going into good British businesses.
	Whatever the outcome, as the Member of Parliament representing Bournville my focus must now be on securing the future of the operation there, and joining other colleagues to protect jobs in other plants.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. No doubt she will refer to some of the assurances that Kraft has offered. May I put it to her that we need more from Kraft than bland assurances? We need to know the specifics, and quickly, of its intentions, including for the high-level research and development jobs and for other things at Bournville. Acting on such words will be important for the future of Bournville and other plants.

Lynne Jones: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will mention such assurances later.
	As a result of the huge additional debt foisted on the business, as well as of the millions paid to bankers and accountants, Kraft is looking to make more than $675 million-worth of savings. I accept that some of that will come from so-called synergies within the business, but it will inevitably lead to corporate job losses. The question that my hon. Friend has raised is whether manufacturing jobs and jobs in research and development and innovation will be retained and will grow. Will Kraft retain the commitment to fair trade under Cadbury?
	Kraft has told me that it has great respect for Cadbury plc and its employees. It says that it is eager to build on Cadbury's iconic brands and strong British heritage and innovation. In response to criticisms of its closure of Terry's in York, it has emphasised that national brands such as Milka in Germany, Marabou in Sweden and Toblerone in Switzerland are still made in their biggest domestic markets. That may be the case. From comments made by the Prime Minister, it seems that similar assurances have been given to the Government. It is too early to take comfort from those assurances. Kraft says that it would love to figure out how to keep open the Keynsham plant that Cadbury would close. However, given that that was an early commitment in meetings with trade unions, I had hoped that it might be more definite about that by now. Nevertheless, there has been heavy investment in Bournville and other plants, and there can be no good reason for Kraft to run down such efficient operations.
	May I finish by asking the Minister exactly what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the Government would do everything they can to make sure that jobs and investment are maintained in Britain? How will that commitment be delivered?

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for introducing the debate. I understand her concerns about the proposed takeover of Cadbury by Kraft, which she has set out eloquently this evening. I understand the concerns across the Chamber, evidenced by the attendance at the debate this evening, and the national concerns about the matter.

David Winnick: Obviously, what is happening regarding Cadbury concerns Birmingham, and rightly so, but will the Minister accept that there is deep concern and anxiety in the black country and Coventry, too?

Ian Lucas: Indeed. I was going on to say that Cadbury employs 5,700 people at eight manufacturing locations across Britain and Ireland. It has plants in Bourneville in Birmingham, the Marlbrook centre at Leominster in Herefordshire and the Somerdale plant in Keynsham just outside Bristol, represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris).

John Mann: Does the Minister recognise the importance of the fight of the workers in Keynsham, backed by their local MP, to preserve their jobs, which were under threat in advance of the takeover bid?

Ian Lucas: Indeed. We should reflect on that and recognise that there were concerns about jobs before the proposal and, of course, there are concerns now. There is also a Cadbury factory just outside Wrexham in Chirk, very close to my constituency. This is an issue that concerns not just the midlands but elsewhere across the country. More than that, we all know that Cadbury is not just a British brand but a British institution.

Jim Cunningham: Cadbury is an institution in this country. We have people in Coventry who work for Cadbury. More importantly, is there not a case for having another look at corporation law regarding this matter?

Ian Lucas: I will go on to discuss such matters if I can make some progress.
	Cadbury is a multimillion pound company and its annual revenue growth has been 6.3 per cent. per year. We know of course that the company has a long and distinguished history. It has enormous civic achievements that have transformed lives and communities, and we recognise that the Cadbury family were social as well as chocolate pioneers. George Cadbury's decision to buy the 120 acres of land close to his works in Birmingham led to the creation of the model village with its own social security programme. George was always very explicit about his purpose there-to ameliorate the condition of the working class and labouring population by the provision of improved dwellings with gardens and open space to be enjoyed therewith.

Tony Wright: As someone who has lived in Bourneville for the past 35 years-within inhaling distance of the chocolate factory-may I say that this is not any old company? As the Minister says, this is a company with a sense of belief and commitment to its own community. It is a model company. The sense of anger and betrayal in the area about what has happened cannot be underestimated and we want a response that is appropriate to that.

Ian Lucas: I well understand and appreciate the level of concern that this proposal is causing to local MPs and others across the country.
	I want to turn to the takeover itself. It is important to set out the facts relating to it. The Cadbury board has now recommended acceptance of the final takeover from Kraft Foods, which values Cadbury at £11.9 billion. That takeover would create the world's largest confectioner. Kraft must secure more than 50 per cent. of shareholder votes by 2 February for its bid to succeed. That is where we are.
	As I have said, we are acutely aware of the strength of feeling generated by the takeover, which we have seen in the wider media, the debate this evening and in the House over the past few weeks. Cadbury is a long-established company with a committed work force that are performing well. It is a significant business with an extraordinary heritage and many stakeholders, both in this country and around the world.
	As Members have said, it is very early to discuss what might happen after the merger process is complete. Kraft needs to make its plans clearer. Kraft has made encouraging noises about its respect for Cadbury's brands, heritage and people. In a conference call with investors on 19 January, Kraft's chief executive, Irene Rosenfeld, said:
	We will continue with a significant presence in the UK and reiterate our previous statements of safeguarding the operations in both Bourneville and Somerdale. We will be a net importer of UK jobs and will continue to have a strong presence here.
	It now has to be very clear about what it will put into Cadbury to build its capacity for growth. I know that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be having an early meeting with Kraft senior management. He will be looking to hear how Kraft will fulfil the commitment it has made to the Cadbury work force and to the company's long-term future. Our Government offices and regional development agencies are also in touch with Cadbury and are pursuing further information from Kraft.

Peter Luff: What I am concerned about is that for months Ministers in the Department, particularly the Secretary of State, were indicating their opposition to this takeover. They have demonstrated that they have no powers to prevent the takeover from happening and now they are seeking assurances from Kraft. Can the Minister confirm that they have no powers to enforce these assurances?

Ian Lucas: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall discuss the Government's powers. We are determined that the levels of investment in Cadbury UK are maintained and that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, the utmost is done to secure those jobs.
	A number of concerns have been raised both in the House and in the media about the proposed takeover, and I wish to deal with each in turn. The first relates to the suggestion that the Government could have done more to intervene. Let me make it clear that the Government have no statutory power to intervene in this case. The relevant independent competition authorities are responsible for considering whether it gave rise to any concerns about a possible loss of effective competition. Ministers have the power to intervene in merger cases only where they raise specific concerns relevant to a legitimate public interest such as national security. There seems no reason to consider that such an intervention would be appropriate in this particular merger.

Lynne Jones: rose-

Ian Lucas: I must make some progress. I might then be able to give way later.
	The second question relates to the level of debt involved in the takeover and the knock-on effect that it might have for jobs at Cadbury plants. I am afraid that the answer is that the matter must be one for the shareholders to decide.
	The third and final issue that I wish to touch on is foreign ownership. I understand the concerns about the impact on jobs, but we must not forget how much this country benefits from foreign investment. My hon. Friend referred to the investment made by companies such as Toyota and Honda. Indeed, it is not simply new investment for greenfield sites, as she mentioned; companies such as Mini in Oxford and Bentley in Crewe have benefited hugely from foreign investment and from takeover situations. We must recognise that it is very valuable to have a system that encourages investment from overseas. There is currently $5 trillion of foreign investment in the UK-that is $5 trillion of foreign shareholding providing the money for millions of jobs, new investment and innovation-so it would be wrong to cast doubt on the value of foreign investment. Let us not forget that this works both ways; UK outward investment is slightly higher than our inward investment. For example, in 2000 Vodafone took over German firm Mannesmann for £112 billion. We thus have to think carefully about the investor relationship that has served this country so well in those respects.

Lynne Jones: Does the Minister intend to address my point about predatory takeovers and the involvement of hedge funds?

Ian Lucas: I do intend to address the issue of long-term investment, if I am allowed to proceed. I recognise that there is a valid concern about the nature of ownership. The Government consider that the best way to run a company is through enlightened shareholder value and for directors to take a long-term view. That was at the heart of the company law review that led to the Companies Act 2006. The best companies apply that principle, and we want to make sure that all do. It is up to shareholders to take a decision on the plans in front of them, but they need to look beyond short-term profit.
	We believe that there is real value in having a discussion about how we build a stronger culture of long-term commitment to sustainable company growth in this country. That should be based on co-operation between ultimate owners, fund managers and the corporate sector. Recent reviews by Sir David Walker and Sir Christopher Hogg have raised important issues, particularly to do with the effectiveness of institutional investor engagement in the long-term interests of UK companies. One part of the solution will be the new investor stewardship code on the responsibilities of institutional investors. The Financial Reporting Council will consult on that shortly.
	It is important that we take into account the position of all individuals who have funds from which they earn money-pension funds and other investments-and encourage them to take an active role in determining how their sums are invested in future. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently had a very productive round-table discussion with investors, fund managers and representatives of companies to consider those important issues and to look at how to improve engagement for the long term.
	The debate engendered by the proposal and the takeover has created an atmosphere in which many new ideas on long-term investment are being put forward. The Government will consider those ideas as they come forward. They have already initiated debate and reports from Sir David Walker and Sir Christopher Hogg; some of that work predated the proposal. In our discussions with the investor community, we repeatedly stress the importance of long-term investment for the future of British industry, and we stress that long-term investors should have the interests of the United Kingdom at the forefront of their minds.
	Cadbury is an iconic brand. It has had, and continues to have, a huge impact, not just on the lives of its work force, but on the community around it and on the country. We understand the concerns that Cadbury employees have at this uncertain time about their jobs and the survival of this valuable British asset. We are determined to maintain levels of investment in Cadbury in the United Kingdom, and to ensure that jobs are secured.
	What Kraft has been saying until now is encouraging. We will continue to talk to it about the future, and to discuss its proposals for development of the business in the UK. Ultimately, those are matters not for the Government but for shareholders of the company. The last thing that we wish to do is threaten investment in UK companies, but I believe that there is genuine cause for concern-concern that has been eloquently expressed in this debate. I am sure that the Government will reflect on that. The concern is not about who owns a company, but about the nature of that ownership. We are working to encourage and strengthen among investors a culture of long-term commitment and engagement to businesses based in the United Kingdom.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.